Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against order dated 6.5.15 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner questioning the legality of order dated 22.4.15 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Barmer, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18.2.15 passed by the Assistant Collector, Bhaniyana, rejecting the application preferred under Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"), stands dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner filed a suit for injunction under Section 188 of the Act, against the respondents No. 7 to 9 herein, accompanied by an application under Section 212 of the Act, seeking temporary injunction in terms that the respondents may not enter into khatedari land of the petitioner, ad measuring 48.8 bighas comprising khasra No. 610/36 and further may not raise construction and interfere with her cultivatory possession thereon. The application was contested by the respondents No. 7 to 9 herein, by filing the reply thereto. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the trial court arrived at the finding that the Company M/s. Inox Renewables Ltd. has been allotted the land comprising khasra No. 36 for its Wind Power Project and the possession thereof has been handed over to it. The court observed that there is nothing on record to suggest that the Company is raising construction on the khatedari land of the petitioner comprising khasra No. 610/36. The court arrived at the finding that the petitioner/plaintiff has no prima facie case in her favour and if the interim relief as prayed for, is granted, irreparable loss will be caused to the Company M/s. Inox Renewables Ltd. inasmuch as, its Wind Power Project shall stand halted. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 212 of the Act was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 18.2.15. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the RAA, Barmer, which stood dismissed vide order dated 22.4.15. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the appellate order dated 22.4.15 stands rejected by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the report of the Inspector Land Record, the fencing of the petitioner's agriculture field has been removed in the eastern side and the Company M/s. Inox Renewables Ltd. has installed the machinery including vanes at the site. Learned counsel submitted that khasra No. 36 is comprised of 100 bighas land whereas only 30 bighas land has been allotted to the said Company. Learned counsel submitted that ignoring the site inspection report available on record, the findings arrived at by the trial court, affirmed by the Appellate Court and the Board of Revenue, are ex facie perverse. Learned counsel submitted that if the respondents are not restrained from raising construction over the petitioner's land, the petitioner is bound to suffer irreparable loss. It is submitted that the petitioner being a recorded khatedar of the land in question, she has strong prima facie case in her favour and the balance of convenience is also in her favour.;