Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against order dated 22.11.13 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein under Section 84 read with Section 9 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ( for short "the Act of 1956"), against the order dated 17.9.13 of Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Pali, has been disposed of with the directions to the trial court to decide the stay petition preferred by the petitioners herein within a period of one month and till then, the order dated 17.9.13 passed by the trial court directing the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the disputed land at the site as also in the revenue record, has been stayed.
(2.) The relevant facts are that one Shri Sampat Raj s/o Ganesh Mal holding the land measuring 5.12 hectares comprising khasra no. 58 of village Somesar, District Pali, gifted 1 hectare out of the said land to the petitioner no.1, a charitable trust in the year 1991. The land transferred in favour of the petitioner trust was allotted khasra no. 58/92. The remaining 4.12 hectare land was sold to Shri Vijay Raj and Smt. Kanchan V Parmar, the respondent no.1 & 2 herein, jointly on 9.3. by way of registered sale deed. After mutation of the land in their favour, the respondent no.1 & 2 got the land converted for developing a residential colony vide order dated 10.5.13 passed by the District Collector, Pali. It is alleged that the location of the said land measuring 4.2 hectare was changed and consequently, it overlapped the petitioner's land. In these circumstances, the petitioners made an application for correction of error before the Sub Divisional Officer, Rani, which is pending consideration. However, since the conversion order was passed in relation to the changed location of the land, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1953 before the RAA questioning the legality of the conversion order. The petitioners also preferred a stay petition seeking interim relief in terms that the effect and operation of order dated 10.5.13 passed by the District Collector may be stayed and the status quo may be maintained in respect of the disputed land in the revenue record and at the site. The RAA while issuing notice to the respondents, passed an interim order, as prayed for.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the RAA, the respondent no.1 preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue under Section 84 read with Section 9 of the Act of 1956. The Board found that against the interlocutory order passed by the RAA, the revision petition is not maintainable. However, the Board observed that the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein was barred by limitation and therefore, the RAA should have decided the issue of limitation first, before passing the interim order on the stay petition preferred on behalf of the petitioners. The revision petition was disposed of by the Board of Revenue exercising the power under Section 9 of the Act of 1956 in terms that RAA shall decide the stay petition within a period of one month after hearing both the parties, however, at the same time, the operation of the order dated 17.9.13 passed by the RAA has been stayed. Hence, this petition.;