ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) The respondent No. 11 M/s. Allied Landmark Private Limited filed a suit for partition under Sections 53 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955') on 31-12-2015 in respect of its purported ? .. " share in khasra No. 834 admeasuring 3.07 hectare village Mawda Tehsil Amer District Jaipur. Impleaded therein were the defendants respondents No. 1 to 9 as also the four petitioners who have laid this petition. An application for temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed. The matter coming upon before the Assistant Collector Amer on 1-1-2016 an ex-parte interim order was passed, while issuing notice to the defendants, restraining them from interfering with the purported possession of the plaintiff M/s. Allied Landmark Private Limited to the extent of their share. Liberty was also granted to the defendants to seek vacation of ex-parte interim order. However even before notices on the suit for partition as also the application for temporary injunction could be served on defendants including the petitioners herein, another application also came to be filed under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 on or about 6-1-2016 seeking appointment of receiver on the land in dispute on the allegation that the ex-parte interim order was being defied by the defendants. On the same day i.e. on 6-1-2016 itself, the Assistant Collector Amer passed another ex-parte order this time appointing a receiver on the land in dispute. The Naib Tehsildar Rampura Dabdi, Tehsil Amer was directed to take possession of disputed land in khasra No. 834 admeasuring 3.07 hectare. Pursuant thereto the Naib Tehsildar, as receiver, took possession of the land (and crops thereon) in khasra No. 834 on 14-1-2016. Surprised and aggrieved of the shocking and reckless ex-parte interim order dated 6-1-2016 and resultant dispossession, the petitioners herein filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur on 20-1-2016, who only called for the record of the trial court without any substantive relief for the appellants before him. The petitioners rushed to the Board of Revenue by way of a revision petition on 10-2-2016, but again to no avail. Hence this petition.
(2.) Compliance with the principles of natural justice is fundamental to all legal adjudication. Administration of justice does not countenance ex-parte orders of dispossession of one claiming to be in settled possession on the basis of a legal title, as in the instant case, claimed by the petitioners in view of their father Saddaram having purchased the suit land vide registered sale-deed dated 16-1-1960 from one Rawat Surendra Singh. Whatever be the merits of the petitioners' case with regard to their lawful possession as claimed in khasra No. 834 and whether or not it relates to the sale deed dated 16-1-1960 executed by Rawat Surendra Singh in favour of the petitioners' father Saddaram, the petitioners could not have been perfunctorily dispossessed from the land through the ex-parte appointment of a receiver. Shockingly in a frightening display of judicial power, a receiver was appointed on the day of the filing of the application for the purpose. That is not the "efficiency" ordinarily on display in any court more so a revenue court. The defendants were not given any reasonable opportunity of stating their defence and being heard. Merits of the case of the parties before the Assistant Collector Amer had to be considered in a regular trial after due service, on the basis of evidences of parties in the suit for partition filed by the respondent-plaintiff M/s. Allied Landmark Private Limited.
(3.) In the context of the aforesaid facts, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Ravi Bhojak on behalf of the petitioners has stated that the order dated 6-1-2016 as also all events consequent thereto be set aside. The fairness of Mr. A.K. Sharma is commendable. But even otherwise in view of palpable arbitrariness resulting from a shocking misuse of judicial power by the Assistant Collector Amer in contravention of principles of natural justice, the ex-parte order dated 6-1-2016 was liable to be set aside and status quo ante directed to be restored.;