Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) Since both the petitions arises out of two interim orders passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision-3560/2007 as such heard together and are being disposed of by the present order.
(2.) It appears from the record that the petitioner sold the land in question by registered sale deed to M/s. Miraj Developers Pvt. Ltd on 20.09.2010 and pursuant thereto mutation was also opened in favour of the purchaser on 17.03.2011 (Annx.3). However, the proceedings were initially initiated by one executive board of the Methodist Church in India before the Additional Collector, Ajmer u/s.75 of the Land Revenue Act, and pursuant thereto the proceedings arises came before the Board of Revenue and after hearing counsel for the parties an interim order was passed on 23.12.2010 directing the parties to maintain status-quo. However, it further appears that after the order of status-quo being passed by the learned Board of Revenue it was not complied with as such further application was filed u/Ord.39 R.2A CPC. However, before taking any further action in the matter the learned Board of Revenue vide its order dt.16.08.2011 directed that whatever the transaction have taken place after passing of the first interim order on 23.12.2010 both the parties are restrained and position existing on the date of passing of the first interim order shall be restored and maintained by the parties and the later order dt.16.08.2011 has been challenged by the petitioner in connected petition (CWP-12286/2011) and the petitioner has sold its property by registered sale deed on 20.09.2010 and possession has been transferred in favour of the purchaser who has not approached to the Court if aggrieved by either of the interim order passed by the Board of Revenue.
(3.) The main thrust of submission of the counsel is that petitioner being a necessary party in the proceedings initiated and pending before the Board of Revenue, in absence whereof the very interim orders passed on 23.12.2010 and the later on order dt.16.08.2011 are wholly without jurisdiction and so far as present petitioner is concerned both the interim orders passed are in violation of principle of natural justice.;