Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 30.9.1991 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, Annex. 2 dated 20.8.1991 by which the possession of the disputed land was taken over from the petitioner and the same was given to the respondent No. 3 Moola Ram, be declared nullity and the respondents No. 2 to 8 be directed to restore the possession of the land, which was taken through Annex. 2, to the petitioner.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows: The land, details of which are mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition, was in actual physical possession of the petitioner as agricultural land and one Moola, who was earlier Khatedar tenant of the disputed land died in the Samvat Year 2008 and after his death, Khatedari rights over the disputed land were conferred on the petitioner by Tehsildar on 28.12.1977 and since then, the petitioner is enjoying Khatedari rights over the land in dispute. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondents No. 3 to 7 have no right over the disputed land and they are trying to dispossess the petitioner forcibly without due process of law. The further case of the petitioner is that seeing the threat of dispossession from the respondents No. 3 to 7, he filed a suit being No. 413/90 under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955") against them in the Court of Sub -Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner (respondent No. 2). Alongwith the suit, application for temporary injunction was also filed by the petitioner and through order dated 18.6.1990, the status quo was ordered to be maintained and that order was extended from time to time, which is evident from Annex. 1, order -sheets of the Court of Sub -Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner. The further case of the petitioner is that on 20.8.1991, the respondents No. 3 to 8 forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from the disputed land with the help of the police and handed over the possession to the respondent No. 3 Moola Ram and that proceedings are recorded in Annex. 2, which is a copy of the daily dairy dated 20.8.1991 of Patwari Halka, Nal Badi, Bikaner. The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, he filed an application before the respondent No. 2 Sub -Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner under Order 39 Rule 2 -A CPC (contempt application) against the respondents No. 3 to 5, but no action has been taken so far by the respondent No. 2 on that application. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the possession of the disputed land was taken over by the respondents No. 3 to 7 forcibly, therefore, possession of the disputed land be restored to the petitioner and the respondents should be restrained from disturbing the possession of the petitioner.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is a civil dispute and there is possibility that the suit, which was filed by the petitioner before the Court of Sub -Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner would have been decided by now and if not decided so far, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, when civil suit is pending before the competent Court, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as such.;