Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARIPAL AND ORS versus B O R

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


HARIPAL AND ORS v B O R - CW Case No. 3130 of 2002 [2007] RD-RJ 4192 (27 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3130/2002

HARIPAL VS. BOARD OFF REVENUE & ORS.

DATE: 27.08.2007.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE

Mr. Bhanu Pareek for the petitioner.

****

Learned counsel Mr. Pareek, appearing for the petitioner candidly agreed that similar controversy has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2006 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4227/2001- Sher Singh & Others Vs. Board of Revenue &

Ors. The present case is also filed under sub-clause

(1) and (2) of Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy

Act.

As per Section 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy

Act, any person against whom an injunction has been granted or in respect of whose property a receiver has been under sub section (1) may offer cash security in such amount as the court may determine to compensate the opposite party in case the suit or proceedings is decided against such persons, and on depositing the amount of such security, the court may withdraw the injunction or the order appointing a receiver as the case may be.

This has been considered by the Revenue

Appellate Authority and has not inclined to give the benefit under Section 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy

Act vide order dated 13.08.96 and the same has been upheld by the Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 12.03.2001. Both the Courts below i.e. the Revenue

Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue upheld the order dated 31.12.86 passed by the Assistant Collector,

Kishangarhbas, District Alwar.

In view of these facts, having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, I only deem it just and proper to direct the trial Court to decide the suite expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Court. Both the parties shall co-operate in the matter.

If the suit is not decided within a period of one year, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek the review of the order passed by this Court.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

The interim order dated 20.05.2002 granted by this Court stands rejected. The stay application also stands disposed of.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.