DINKER LAL MEHTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners were allotted the land by the Assistant Collector (Biswedari) temporarily on 24th August, 1961. It is further alleged that on 21st August, 1961 the possession was delivered to the present petitioners. They have also produced Annexure -1, Patta Bahi to prove the delivery of possession. On 16th January, 1962 permanent allotment was made in favour of the present petitioners. Annexure -2, parcha settlement was issued in favour of the present petitioners on 18th July, 1962. The present non -petitioners submitted the objections before the Collector, Jagir, the copy of the said objection has been produced before this Court and is marked as Annexure -8. It was mentioned there in that this was the Beswedari land and was in the 'Khudkast' of the present non -petitioners and it was not available for allotment. It was also submitted that the allotment made in favour of the present petitioners should be cancelled. On 23rd April, 1963, the objections were accepted and the allotment was cancelled by the Collector. On 22nd January, 1964, the Revenue Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the present petitioners who were the appellants before the Court. The present petitioners preferred the second appeal before the Revenue Board which was decided on 10th October, 1966. The appeal was accepted on the ground that the State was a necessary party and the State should be impleaded as a party and, thereafter, the matter should be decided by the Collector.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the inquiry in the matter of allotment the present petitioners filed a suit under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. An application 212 of the Act was also moved before the trial court. The application was accepted and tomporary injunction was issued in favour of the present petitioners. The Revenue Board vide its order dated 6th May, 197I, confirmed the temporary injunction granted in favour of the present petitioners. The suit is still pending. On 9th May, 1967, Divan Ram Singh died and his legal representatives were brought on record. On 6th July, 1967 vide Annexure -7, the matter of allotment was decided on merits and the Collector held that it is not 'Khudkast' land and, as such, rejected the objections filed by the present non -petitioners. The appeal was preferred by the present non -petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was also rejected on 20th June, 1972. Against the findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority a second appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue. The appeal No. 1/72 was decided on 14th November, 1975 and the same was accepted. The objections filed by the non -petitioners were upheld and the allotment was cancelled. A review petition was preferred before the Revenue Board which was also decided on 7 -6 -1976. The order accepting the appeal is Annexure -10 and the order rejecting the review petition is Annexure -11. The matter was pending for a pretty long time and the present non -petitioners filed a suit under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the competent Revenue Officer for the declaration of their title in which the present non -petitioners were also party to the suit. The suit was decreed on 21st May, 1973 and it was declared that the present non -petitioners are the 'Khudkast' tenants and the allotment was made in favour of the present petitioners which is not a good allotment. Being aggrieved with this finding the appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority stayed the operation of the decree vide its order dated 7th June, 1978. An application was moved by the present petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority for the appointment of the receiver. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated 12th April, 1974 appointed the receiver vide Annexure -9. It is not understandable why the present petitioner moved an application for the appointment of the receiver when he was having a temporary injunction issued under Section 212 in his favour which was also confirmed by the Revenue Board on 6th May, 1971. Being aggrieved with the appointment of the receiver the present non -petitioner preferred the appeal before the Revenue Board. This appeal was 7 of 1974.
(3.) THUS , two appeals were pending before the Revenue Board, one Appeal No. 1/72 and the other being No. 7/1974. The question before the Revenue Board was whether the allotment made in favour of the present petitioner is good in law. The question before the Revenue Board in appeal No. 1/72 was whether the allotment in favour of the present petitioners was good in law or not. As far as the second appeal No. 7/74 was concerned, the question before the Revenue Board was whether the appointment of a receiver in the facts and circumstances, was good in law or not both the matters were so inter se linked and inter -connected that the Revenue Board vide its judgment Annexure -10. decided both the appeals in one judgment. The appeal No. 1/72 filed by the present petitioner was accepted and it was held that the allotment was bad in law. Appeal No. 7 of 1974 was also accepted and it was held that the appointment of a receiver, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was bad. Annexure -11 is the order of the review petition passed by the Revenue Board. Being aggrieved with the orders, Annexure -10 and Annexure -11, this writ petition has been preferred by the present petitioners before this Court and a prayer has been made that the order of the Revenue Board should be quashed.;