- (1.) THE matter has come up on an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the interim order dated 4-7-2012. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is however being disposed of.
(2.) COUNSEL for respondent Mr. Garg submits that the order dated 13-6-2011 passed by the Board of Revenue (herein after 'the Board) is a legal and valid order in the context the about three opportunities having earlier been provided to petitioner, as appellant before the Board, to argue on stay application where under he was enjoying interim order dated 2-3-2012. It is submitted that even otherwise there is no merits in the case of petitioner as the petitioner is not a recorded khatedar and not in possession of parcel of land in dispute. It is submitted that proceedings before the Board in appeal arise out of a challenge to the order on an application for interim relief before the Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur, and rather than pursue the meritless matter before the Board, the petitioner ought to have pursued the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Counsel for respondent submits that though the appeal before the Board is without any substance, the petitioner is only seeking to raise complications in the dispute by prolonging the appeal after obtaining the interim order dated 2-3-2012 such that to the world at large clouds of litigation continue to hang over the property in issue and suppress its value. Mr. Lokesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that merits of the appeal before the Board is not subject matter before this court. He submits that the issue before this court is-the arbitrariness in exercise of discretionary powers of the Board. The petitioner's counsel before the Board in view of his personal difficulties sought a reasonable time to prepare the matter which was unjustly denied and therefore the order dated 13-6-2012 passed by the Board dismissing the stay application deserves to be set aside. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. From the facts available on record, in my considered opinion the matter would stand resolved if the impugned order dated 13-6-2012 is set aside not so much on the substantive merits of the petitioner's case, but on procedural arbitrariness where under a request for short adjournment entailed vacation of the interim order dated 2-3-2012 as a penal consequence without passing a reasoned and speaking order. However in the facts of the case, I would direct the Board of Revenue to consider the stay application now pending before the Board consequent to this order and dispose of the same positively on the next date i.e. 9-8-2012. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes on behalf of the petitioner that no further adjournments will be sought before the learned Board of Revenue in the matter. The Board is also directed to decide the main appeal before it expeditiously and in any even within three months. In the event of petitioner's non-cooperation, the application for interim relief and the appeal be disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner Mr.Lokesh Sharma has admitted that the petitioner is not in possession of parcel of land. Therefore it is directed that during pendency of the stay application before the Board both the parties maintain status quo.;