M.C. Jain, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions are directed against the composite order of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer dated June 2, 1981 whereby, the petitioners' revision petitions No. 116 of 1980 and 117 of 1980 were dismissed.
(2.) THE case has a chequered history. It would be proper to advert to some material facts. The petitioners instituted Suit No. 109 of 1977 on August 18,1977 in the court of Sub -Divisional Officer, Udaipur for declaration and for permanent injunction with the allegations that 13 khasras measuring 11 Bighas 6 Biswas were let out to their ancestors by Shri Laxmansingh Rajput Tak, the ancestor of defendant No. 1 Chunnilal, on Migear Sudi 10 S.Y. 1955 and since then, the ancestors and after them, the plaintiffs are in their possession and they have been cultivating the same. In the Settlement of S.Y. 1987, the name of grand -father of the plaintiffs Lehru, Kanhaiyalal, Devilal, Laxman and uncle of the plaintiffs Partha namely; Gamana was recorded as Shikmi Kashtkar. Gamana's brother Kana was also cultivating along with him and after the death of Gamana and Kana, Amra the father of plaintiffs Lehru, Kanhaiyalal, Devilal and Laxman son of Shavlal and Pratha son of Kana had been in the cultivatory possession of the land. At the time of the settlement of S.Y. 1987, the land was mortgaged to one Shri Khemraj. So, the name of Shri Khemraj was entered as Khatedar. After redemption of the land, Chunnilal defendant No I was recorded as Khatedar of the land. However, the plaintiffs continued to be in the cultivatory possession of the land as sub -tenants. The plaintiffs alleged that they were sub -tenants on the date of the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') and even in the year 1961, the entries of the settlement Jamabandi for S.Y. 1987 continued, it was further alleged by the plaintiffs that the name of defendant No. 1 Chunnilal was wrongly continued as Khatedar in the Jamabandi upto May 5,1970. By operation of the law, the plaintiff became khatedars of the land. Defendant No 1 illegally entered into an agreement to sell the land in question with the defendant No. 5 Deena Nath on February 22, 1974 and defendant No. 5 Deenanath obtained a decree for specific performance of contract and in execution of the decree, the Additional District Judge executed the sale -deed in respect of the land in question on April 17, 1975 in favour of the defendant No. 5. Therefore, the defendant No. 5 got mutation effected in his name as khatedar of the land on May 13, 1977 in place of the name of Shri Chunnilal. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that they were and are the khatedars of the land and the defendants be restrained from interfering in their cultivatory possession of the land. 3. Along with the filing of the plaint the plaintiffs submitted an application for temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 15(sic)2, CPC, which was registered as Miscellaneous Application Not 129 of 1977. The Sub Divisional Officer, Udaipur after hearing the parties, vacated the temporary injunction by his order dated January 4, 1978. The plaintiff's preferred an appeal against that order and their appeal No. 34 of 1978 was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur on June 6, 1978. The defendant Deenanath went in revision before the Board of Revenue and his revision No. 106 of 1976 was allowed on February 7, 1979 and the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority was set aside and the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer dated January, 1978 was restored.
(3.) THEREAFTER , on March 23,1979 the defendant Deenanath submitted an application under Section 212 of the Act for appointment of a receiver alleging that the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction has been rejected on the basis that the defendant Deenanath has been put into possession of the land on May 9, 978 by the court of Addl. District Judge, Udaipur in execution of the decree for specific performance. It was alleged that the plaintiffs taking undue advantage of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated June 6,1978 whereby, the defendant was restrained from interfering in their possession, indulged into forcible interference in the possession of the defendant and damaged the crops sown by him. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are bent upon damaging the land and deprive the defendant from its legitimate use and occupation, so the defendant Deenanath prayed for appointment of receiver. The Sub -Divisional Officer, Udaipur by his order dated May 15, 1979 allowed the application and appointed Tehsildar, Girwa as receiver. On the same day i.e. May 15,1979, the plaintiffs moved an application under Sub -section (2) of Section 212 of the Act that the plaintiffs are prepared to give cash -security, so the order for cash -security may be passed and order of appointment of the receiver may be withdrawn. The sub -Divisional Officer by his order dated May 21, 1979 allowed the plaintiffs' application and ordered the plaintiffs to deposit Rs. 2,000/ - every year byway of cash -security on the 1st June and it was further ordered that the cash security for that year be deposited within a week. In case the security is not deposited within the prescribed time, the order for appointment of the receiver will remain in force, else it will stand withdrawn. The plaintiffs' appeal No. 353 of 1979 against the order of appointment of receiver was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on September 9 1980 and Deenanath's appeal No. 342 of 1979 against the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer dated May 21, 1979 for cash -security was allowed and the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer was set aside.;