M.N.BHANDARI,J. - (1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 1.4.1989 passed by the Assistant Collector, Bayana, order dated 5.8.1989, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur and the order dated 9.11.1994, passed by the Board of Revenue.
(2.) Learned counsel submits that a suit for injunction was filed by the Temple. It was dismissed by the ACM vide its order dated 1.4.1989. The temple, Sitaramji preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and has been allowed. The petitioners, thereupon, approached Board of Revenue, however, their appeal was dismissed thus the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) It is submitted that prior to the suit filed by the Temple, a suit was filed in regard to the same land. An order was thereupon passed on 21.11.1966. The second litigation was decided, vide order dated 5.8.1970, ignoring the earlier order. A suit for injunction was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the order therein has been maintained by the Board of Revenue. The land in dispute was in possession of the petitioner thus no injunction order could have been passed. The aforesaid was ignored by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue despite a finding by ACM court in favour of the petitioner. In view of above, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.;