Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) IT appears from the facts of the case that Sarva Shri Chunni Lal, Ram Lal and Kundan Lal were three brothers. The petitioners ' case is that the disputed land was allotted only to Chunni Lal under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act of 1954 '). His successors obtained Sanad on 01.04.1966 and thereafter sold land to the petitioners on 11.01.1977. In view of the above reasons, the petitioners became khatedar tenants of the land in question. However, Kundan Mal, brother of Chunni Lal, preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act of 1954 against the order dt. 31.05.1971 passed by the Managing Officer, Ganganagar whereby he treated all the heirs of Chunni Lal as sole successors of Chunni Lal after the death of Chunni Lal and substituted the name of Chunni Lal with the name of heirs of Chunni Lal. Kundan Lal submitted that in fact, the land in dispute was the joint property of the three brothers Chunni Lal, Kundan Lal and Ram Lal and the Managing Officer, Ganganagar illegally declared Chunni Lal and his successors alone as the persons entitled to the land in question. This appeal preferred before the Settlement Commissioner was dismissed vide order dt. 19.11.1975, copy of which is placed on record as Annex. 7. In the said proceedings, the petitioners were not party and so also, receiver was appointed. The petitioners, therefore, preferred writ petition No. 1605/1983 (Balveer Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar). This writ petition was decided by this Court vide order dt. 10.03.1983. This Court took note of the contention of the petitioners, who were petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1605/1983 and are also the present petitioners, that they purchased the land by registered sale deed and the legality and validity of the said sale deed has not been determined and they are in possession of the property in question. Despite this fact, the order Annex. 6 dt. 11.01.1983 was passed affecting the rights of the petitioners. This Court held that since the order dt. 11.01.1983 was passed without following the principles of natural justice, therefore, is liable to be set aside. This Court directed both the parties to appear before Chief Settlement Officer (Collector), Ganganagar on 19.04.1983 and direction was issued to said authority to hear both the parties and decide the matter afresh. It appears that the learned Collector thereafter took upon the matter by registering revision No. 35/1981 again and vide order dt. 20.04.1985 partly allowed the appeal of respondent Kundan Lal and set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer cum Collector, Ganganagar and remanded the matter back to the Settlement Commissioner. While doing so, a receiver was also appointed with the direction to the receiver to take possession of the land in dispute and give the land on contract basis by auction and collect the income so that the income may be paid to the rightful junior person.
(3.) THE order of appointment of receiver was challenged by preferring appeal by the petitioners before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner under Section 33 of the Act of 1954. The appeal was dismissed vide order dt. 19.01.1996. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order of appointment of receiver, hence, have preferred this writ petition.;