- (1.) THIS is a revision under sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated 23rd August, 1971. It appears that Ghisalal non-applicant No I filed a suit under sections 88/188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the court of Assistant Collector, Jaipur in respect of agriculture land comprised in khasra number 377, 1 bigha 15 biswas situated in village Badi Ka Khera Tehsil Sanganer, district Jaipur. Ghisalal also moved an application under sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with O. 39, r. 1 and 2 and sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Assistant Collector, Jaipur in respect of the same land. The Assistant Collector, Jaipur considered the matter on 21-9-70 and directed that status quo should be maintained over the disputed land and he wanted to make the site inspection on 810-70. Subsequently the Assistant Collector inspected the land on 8-10-70 and prepared a memorandum of inspection on the same date in which he has recorded that plant of Choula were noticeable to some extent on the field while there were also plant of Moong and Bajra.He found that the crop had been uprooted from the field but uprooted crop belonged to Choula. After this the Assistant Collector, Jaipur passed an order on 12th October, 1970 appointing a receiver to manage the khasra No. in dispute. The main suit under secs. 88/188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 has not made any progress so far. Nanak Chand preferred an appeal against the order of Assistant Collector, Jaipur dated 12th October, 1970 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur but his appeal was dismissed and the order of Assistant Collector, Jaipur was upheld. The order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur is dated 23-8-71. The present is revision is against the appellate order.
(2.) THE two lower courts have deemed it necessary to appoint a receiver to manage khasra number 377 of 1 bigha 15 biswas situated in villaged Badi-ka-Khera Tehsil Sanganer. THE right of courts to appoint a receiver is being disputed before us in the instant case. It is necessary to further look into the fact of the dispute before we come to the actual point in dispute. It has been alleged that khasra No. 377 of 1 bigha 15 biswas situated in village Badi Ka-Khera Tehsil, Sanganer has been recorded in the muafi of Bherulal and Jugal Kishore sons of Ghisalal Brahmin of village Bagru in the settlement record of the Rajasthan State. (Purcha of settlement for samvat year 2015 to 2024 dated 24 11-58 issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Jaipur which has been produced by the non-applicant Nos. 3 & 4 in the court of Assistant Collector, Jaipur). It was in their khudkasht and after resumption of their muafi conti-nued to be in their possession and they have sold their khatedari rights in respect of this land through a registered sale deed dated 6 8-1969 in favour of the applicant and put him in possession of the land from the date of execution of sale deed It appears that this same land has been sold by non-applicant No.2 in favour of Ghisalal Mahajan non-applicant No 1 vide sale deed dated 14-8-69. In mutation No. 50 of village Badi-Ka-Khera Bhanwarilal, Jugal Kishore sons of Ghisalal Brahmin. Bagru have been entered as khatedars of the suit land and through this mutation Kalu non-applicant No. 2 got transfer made in his name on 4-8-69 through the order of Tehsildar, Sanganer dated 2 8-69. Another mutation No 57 of the same village was got sanctioned on 22-8-70 in favour of Ghisalal non-applicant No. 1 on the basis of registered sale deed dated 14-8-69. An appeal was filed by non-applicants 3 and 4 (original muafidars) before the Additional Collector, Jaipur who accepted their appeal on 1-8-70 and set aside the order of Tehsildar, Sanganer dated 2-8-69 on the basis of which mutation No. 50 had been got sanctioned. The transfer of khatedari rights sought to be made from the original muafidar in the name of non-applicant No. 2 has thus been prevented. Mutation No. 57 is a subsequent development which follows from mutation No. 50 and as the applicant has not been a party to it he had not taken any action against it so far. Thus disputed khasra No. is claimed by the applicant to have been purchased from the original muafidars viz. non-applicant Nos. 3 and 4 while non-applicant No. 1 claims it from Kalu non-applicant No. 2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. It has been contended before us that the grant of injunction and appointment of a receiver is governed by sec 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in respect of revenue courts. It is a special provision which should be rigorously followed rather than provision of order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is a general provision in respect of all the courts. Certain specific conditions have been prescribed in sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which must be satisfied before a temporary injunction can be granted, and if necessary, a receiver can be appointed. The courts generally can appoint a receiver if it appears to them to be "just and convenient" under Order XL, Rule 1 of the C P.C. but these words have not been included in sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Hence the revenue courts are debarred from issuing a temporary injunction and appoint a receiver merely on the basis of the two words 'just and convenient" stated in Order XL, Rule 1 of the C. P. C. For acting under sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the following ingredients are essential to be established : - "(a) that any property which relates to a suitor proceeding is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party; (b) that any party to a suit or proceedings threatens or intends to remove or dispose of the property in order to defeat the ends of justice." It has, therefore, been strongly urged before us that unless these primary conditions are proved, no revenue court could grant a temporary injunction and appoint a receiver. On behalf of the applicant it was shown to the court of first instance that he had obtained khatedari rights of the suit land from the original muafidars of the land viz non-applicant Nos 3 and 4 through a registered sale deed dated 6-8-69 The suit land was in khudkasht of these muafidars even after resumption of muafi. They had become khatedars of land and, therefore, they were authorised under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act to transfer their rights by sale to another person. Against this Kalu non-applicant No. 2 could not sell this land to non-applicant No. V through a sale deed executed by him on 14-8-69, as he had no basic khatedari rights. His attempt to enter into the shoes of the original muafidars through mutation No 50 of village Badi-Ka-Khera with the assistance of Tehsildar, Sanganer was resisted in appeal before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur and the order of the Tehsildar was rejected and the appeal was remanded to Gram Panchayat for further enquiry. Unless mutation No 50 could be sanctioned showing transfer of muafi land from the original muafidars to the khatedari of Kalu non-applicant No. 2, he could not gain any right to transfer his light to Ghisalal non-applicant No.l through any sale deed executed by him. The applicant had established prima facie his title and possession over the suit land before the Assistant Collector, Jaipur and two conditions prescribed in sec 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were established, the question of appointing a receiver in respect of this land should not have arisen (1966 R.R.D. 304) Even for a moment it may be presumed that the title of applicant in respect of suit land was not established his de facto possession should not have been disturbed and no receiver should have been appointed (1970 R. R. D. 351 and 1971 R. R. D. 35). A receiver could be appointed when the suit property was in medio i.e. in the possession of nobody. The lower court was required to satisfy itself which of the contesting parties was in undisputed possession of the property (1960 R.R.D. 43 and 1960 R.R.D. 83). Although there has been rival claim in respect of the suit land in the instant matter but it was necessary for the trial court to determine the de facto possession over it before appointing a receiver. In this case Tehsildar, Sanganer has been appointed receiver by the Assistant Collector, Jaipur vide his order dated 12-10-1970 although he had passed an order for maintenance of status quo on 21-9-1970. It has been strongly urged before us that if the learned Assistant Collector, Jaipur wanted to pass any order contrary to the orders already passed by him on 21 9-1970 he ought to have heard the parties again before arriving at a different conclusion on 12-10-1970. We find that the Assistant Collector after passing his order dated 21-9-1970 fixed a date for site inspection on 8-10-1970 and then passed his order dated 12 10-1970 without giving any opportunity to the contesting parties to appear before him in order to determine de facto possession over the suit land. It is true that the revenue court has discretion in respect of granting temporary injunction and appointment of a receiver but this could be done by exercising such a discretion in a judicial and reasonable manner keeping in view the clear provisions contained in sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Any person who comes into possession of the khatedari rights |from lawful tenants in normal process of law and procedure could not be ejected in the exercise of inherent powers of the court. The courts have inherent powers to interfere in extraordinary circumstances when normal conditions are not applicable and ends of justice and convenience require interference. We have carefully perused the record of the trial court. We do not find any application had been made before it either by the applicant or the non-applicant No. 1 for appointment of a receiver in respect of the suit land. Each party was claiming possesion through a sale deed. The trial court ought to have determined their rival claim and it should have decided which party was in real possession of the suit land and then only its order dated 21-9-70 to maintain status quo in respect of possession could be properly implemented. No such attempt appears to have been made by the learned Assistant Collector, Jaipur and he invoked the arduous remedy of appointing a receiver in the instant case although it was never established before him that the disputed property was in medio. It has therefore, been rightly urged before us that the Assistant Collector, Jaipur has exceeded his jurisdiction in appointing a receiver over the suit land and the same mistake has been committed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. The trial court could appoint a receiver either on the application of one of the contesting parties or suo motu. It is not established that the appointment of a receiver under sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act can only be made, if there is an application on behalf of a party. When there are contesting parties in respect of the suit land they could not be condemned without being properly heard and the ex parte appointment of receiver cannot be justified in such a case (1970 R.R.D. 537 and 1970 R.RD 351), It has been contended that the Board has limited powers in revision under sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and that it should not lightly interfere with the concurrent findings of the two lower courts. In the instant case we find that both the courts have failed to exercise jurisdiction properly as vested in them under sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and that they have acted with material irregularity in appointing a receiver over the suit land in the instant case. The possession of the applicant has been established over this land as having flowed lawful channels and such a de facto possession should not be disturbed until the pending suit under sec. 88/188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act instituted by non applicant No. 1 is determined. Our attention has been drawn towards an application of applicant filed on 3-10-70 before the Asstt. Collector, Jaipur in which it has been alleged that the crop of 'Choula' belonging to him was standing on the suit land and that the learned court had ordered for maintenance of status quo but the non applicant No. 1 uprooted the same by making illegal entry into the field and that he has made report in this respect to the police of P. S. Bagru and that he had also spoken to the Addl. S. P., Jaipur and has prayed for taking action against Ghisalal for contempt of the court's order and this application was accompanied with an affidavit of the same date. The Asstt. Collector at the time of site inspection on 8-10-70 found the 'Choula' crop uprooted from the disputed field as he could notice only very few plants of Choula. Here was an evidence of de facto possession of the applicant over the disputed field and it should not have been lightly interfered with by appointment of receiver. Consequently, we accept this revision and set aside the order of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated 23-8-71 and that of Assistant Collector, Jaipur dated 12-10-70 appointing a receiver in respect of the suit land and direct that the de facto possession of the applicant over khasra No. 377, 1 bigha 15 biswas situated in village Badi ka-Khera, Tehsil Sanganer be maintained until the determination of the pending revenue suit. ;