N.K.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS Full Bench has been constituted pursuant to the order of Division Bench dated 12.7.1994 as there is a conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court rendered in Birji v. Board of Revenue (R.R.D. 1979 -294) AND Guman Singh v. The Board of Revenue (1992(1)RLW -592).
(2.) IN Birji v. Board of Revenue (supra), the petitioner Birji approached this Court Under Article 226 against the order of the Assistant Collector, Rajgarh Dist. Alwar on the application Under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in a suit for possession of agricultural land filed by the paintiff -non -petitioner whereby he directed that Birji should deposit a sum of Rs. 2000/ - per year in two Installments in Tehsil until the decision of the suit, which was confirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar so also by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.6.1977. It was argued before the learned Judges that the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit a cash security year after year is the nature of an order Under Section 212(2) of the Act and that order could only be passed after the Assistant Collector would have come to the conclusion that a receiver should be appointed or a temporary injunction should be granted in accordance with the provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 212 of the Act. The learned Judges have observed that apart form Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the revenue court had inherent powers Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been made applicable to revenue courts by the provisions of Section 208 of the Act, to impose such condition. After relying on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Manoharlal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Rajasthan Seth Hiralal : AIR1962SC527 held that in the present case although the provisions of Section 212 of the Act were not applicable, yet the Assistant Collector was Justified in passing an order directing the petitioner to deposit a cash security, in the inherent Jurisdiction of that court. In Guman Singh and Ors. v. The Board of Revenue and Ors. (supra), Smt. Chandrakanta -respondent No. 5 through her General power of Attorney Holder filed a suit Under Section 103 and 100 of the Act against Guman Singh and Ors. petitioners came with the allegations that in the boundary of village Gulab Ganj. Tehsil Revdar, she owns about 29 Kharas, the total area of which is 130 bighas and 15 biswas and that land stands in her khatedari. In the suit, she has prayed that a decree of ejectment as also a permanent injection be passed against the defendant petitioners. She has further prayed that till the possession is delivered to her, she may be awarded damages to the extent of 15 times of the land revenue from the defendant -petitioners. The learned Sub -divisional Magistrate, Sirohi held that the plaintiff -respondent No. 5 is a Parda Nashin lady and further she belongs to the weaker section of the society and, therefore, in order to safeguard her interest, a Receiver be appointed to look after the entire land in dispute. Tehsildar Reodar was appointed as Receiver of this property. However, no permanent injection was granted in favour of the plaintiff -respondent No. 5. The appeal filed against this order was dismissed on 24.6.1991. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer. The learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue observed that it appears that the trial court has appointed the Receiver without a specific request being made by the plaintiff, who has simply made an application Under Section 212 of the Act and has requested for grant of temporary injunction against the petitioners. The learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue has further observed that there was no dispute regarding old possession of the defendant -petitioners on the land in dispute. The learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue has further observed that even if the defendant petitioners were in possession without lawful authority, as trespasser, they were entitled to get protection of this court until ejected by a decree of competent court, but at the same time, in order to protect the interest of the plaintiff -respondent, who is ostensible owner of the property, the stay application filed alongwith the revision petition was accepted and the order regarding appointment of Receiver was stayed provided that cash security at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per bigha pr year is deposited by the petitioners in the concerned Tehsil within 10 days from this order falling which this order will be deemed not to have been passed. St was further ordered that for subsequent years, the cash security will be deposited latest by 30.6.1992 and so on. Against the said order of the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue, the petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was allowed. This Court observed that in cases of settled possession, the order of appointment of receiver is nothing short of miscarriage of Justice and even an order permitting defendant to remain In possession on payment of cash security cannot be sustained. This Court has further observed that as the requirement of Section 212 of the Act do not exist, a Receiver cannot be appointed and interfered and set -aside the order demanding cash security from the defendant petitioners for remaining in possession of the land in dispute.
(3.) THE question which arises for determination is as under. Whether the Revenue Courts are competent to pass an order for case security in cases where neither receiver is appointed nor temporary injection is issued Under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.;