MADAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY way of this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity and propriety of the order dated 10. 5. 2001 impugned (Ann. 4) passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short "the Board") whereby the petitioners' application under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for short the "act" challenging the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar (for short "the Authority") dt. 1. 5. 2001 (Ann. 1) was rejected. The undisputed facts as set up by the petitioners are that they were in possession of a piece of land situated in Chak No. 5 LSM of District Sri Ganganagar comprised in Murabba No. 31/390 measuring 24. 10 bighas which was allotted to late Shri Sukhdev Singh S/o Shri Preetam Singh on 16. 8. 1976 by the District Colonization Commissioner, Garsana Headquarter, Anupgarh, Shri Sukhdev Singh was unmarried and died on 25. 11. 1981 at Village Kumbarawali (55rb ). Before his death he made a Will in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Vimla Devi wife of Shri Lal Chand (Petitioner No. 1) on 17. 3. 1981. It was registered with the Sub- Registrar, Sri Ganganagar. It is further averred in the petition that respondent No. 2 Gurudev Singh (Sukhdev Singh) got the pass book of the land in question in his name in collusion with the Patwari of the area concerned and also got himself entered as Sukhdev Singh S/o Preetam Singh in the Voter's List of 1993 by stating his residence of the concerned area prior to 1983. He was always referred to as Gurudev Singh S/o Preetam Singh in the Voter Lists of 1966, 1971 & 1975. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a suit No. 49/1997 on 26. 3. 1997 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh under Sec. 183 of the Act for possession and the ejectment of the petitioners. The petitioners filed written statements and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court while framing six issues decreed the suit of possession in favour of respondent No. 2 directing ejectment of the petitioners from the land in dispute vide order dt. 15. 3. 2001. Against the order of the trial Court dt. 15. 3. 2001, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority alongwith stay application. On 22. 3. 2001, the arguments of appeal were heard but the Authority dismissed the stay application. Being aggrieved against the order of the Authority dt. 22. 3. 2001 dismissing stay application, petitioners filed an application under Sec. 221 of the Act before the Board of Revenue but the arguments could not be concluded for one reason or the other, meanwhile, petitioners were dispossessed from the land in dispute and the respondents are stated to be making efforts to dispossess the petitioners from their residential house known as "dhani" as well. Against the order dt. 22. 3. 2001 of the Authority, the petitioners have also moved another stay application before the Board seeking restoration of possession of the petitioners of "dhani" and the Board while restoring the aforesaid order of the Authority vide order dated 9. 5. 2001 (Ann. 5) observed that no irregularity has been committed by the Authority in dismissing the stay application and the rights of the parties will be determined at the time of final hearing of appeal on merits which is pending before the Authority. On another application seeking stay by the petitioners, the Authority by its order dt. 1. 5. 2001 (Ann. 1) adjourning the matter observed that since the order dt. 22. 3. 2001 has been challenged before the Board, no ground for stay is made out. Against the order dt. 1. 5. 2001 of the Authority, petitioners filed an application before the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar seeking direction to Tehsildar not to dispossess the petitioners from Dhani. The District Collector vide order dated 5. 5. 2001 directed the Tehsildar Anupgarh to submit a report. On 5. 5. 2001 itself Tehsildar Anupgarh submitted his report vide Annexure-3 to the District Collector to the effect that pursuant to the judgment dt. 15. 3. 2001 of the trial Court, the petitioners have been dispossessed from the land in dispute but the possession of "dhani" (residential house) is still in possession of the petitioners. Against the order dt. 5. 5. 2001, petitioners again moved an application under Sec. 221 of the Act before the Board praying therein not to dispossess them from "dhani" pending hearing of appeal before the Authority. The Board rejected the application vide order dated 10. 5. 2001 (Ann. 4) on the ground that the previous stay application which was dismissed was similar to that stay application.
(3.) IT is under the aforesaid circumstances that this writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt. 10. 5. 2001 (Ann. 4) of the Board whereby the Board restored the order dt. 1. 5. 2001 (Ann. 1) of the Authority declining interim stay to the petitioners. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, considered their rival claims and contentions and so also examined the legal position on the subject. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I would like to refer to the provisions of Section 221 of the Act:- "221. Subordination of revenue courts.- The general superintendence and control over all revenue courts shall be vested in, and all such Courts shall be subordinate to the Board; and subject to such superintendence, control and (b) all Additional Collectors, Sub-Divisional Officers, Assistant Collectors and Tehsildars in a district shall be subordinate to the Collector thereof, (c) all Assistant Collectors, Tehsildars and Naib- Tehsildars in a sub-division shall be subordinate to the Sub- Divisional Officer thereof, and (d) all Additional Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars in a Tehsil shall be subordinate to the Tehsildar thereof. " The learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that there is no illegality apparent on the face of the orders of the Board as well as the Authority and it is not open to the petitioners to assail the said orders by way of this writ petition. ;