R.R. Yadav, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order passed by the Assistant Collector and Assistant Colonisation Commissioner on 1.7.91, Anx. 3, order passed by the Additional Colonisation-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner on 12.10.93, Anx. 4 and the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 22.7.96, Anx. 5 to the writ petition appointing receiver in respect of the land in question.
2. The aforesaid orders have been passed by the abovementioned courts in exercise of its power under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Thus petitioner's claim opposing appointment of receiver has been negatived by all the courts below.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri J.R.Beniwal streneously urged before me that the subordinate courts have erred in appointing receiver with regard to land in dispute as according to him it is admitted that the land was also allotted to the petitioner after cancellation of allotment of respondent No. 4. According to Shri Beniwal all the courts below have accepted the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question yet these courts have proceeded to appoint receiver against mandatory provisions envisaged under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards ingredients enumerated under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act according to which any property to which such suit or proceeding relates is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party thereto, or any party to such suit or proceeding threatens or intends to remove or dispose of the said property in order to defeat the ends of Justice, the court may grant a temporary injunction and, if necessary, appoint a receiver.
5. According to Shri Beniwal the ingredients enumerated under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are not attracted in the present case. In support of his aforesaid argument he invited my attention towards a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lehru and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 1982 WLN (UC) 524 where the question of temporary injunction was involved. In case of Lehru and Others (supra) it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked to interfere in the judgment of the Board of Revenue if the same has been passed without considering the relevant materials placed on record and taking into considerations the erroneous presumption and by applying or adopting wrong and erroneous approach and reasoning. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law but no circumstance has been brought to my notice in the present case which may attract the ratio laid down in the case of Lehru and others (supra).
6. It is apparent on the face of record that title of the petitioner over the land in question has been extinguished by the judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 19.7.85 by means of which the allotment of Narain Ram, respondent No. 4, was restored and the allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled with a compassionate suggestion that if possible, petitioner Mohanram may be allotted land some where else in lieu of the land in question. It is further evident from the aforesaid judgment dated 19.7.85, Anx. 2 to the writ petition, that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority had also ordered restoration of possession within two months in favour of respondent No. 4 Narain Ram. The operative portion of the judgment dated 19.7.85 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority is reproduced below:
vr% vihy vihykUV Lohdkj dh tkrh gS yk;d vnkyr ekrgr dk vkns'k fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A ,oa bl funsZ'k ds lkFk Ik=koyh fjek.M+ dh tkrh gS fd fooknxzLr Hkwfe dk dCtk vihykUV dks nks eghus es fnyok;k tkos A jsLiksMsUV Jh eksgujke dsk ;fn blh Hkwfe dk vkoaVu gqvk gks rks mls mldh {kerk ds vqulkj vU;= Hkwfe dk vkaoVu fd;k tk;s A
vihykaUV dks fgnk;r nh tkrh gS fd og yk;d vnkyr ekrgr ds le{k fnukad 26-10-85 dks mifLFkr gksA
7. Indisputably the aforesaid judgment has attained finality and as such the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim prima facie title over the land in question on ground of remand. In fact case was remanded to hand over possession within two months to respondent No. 4 Narain Ram together with suggestion to trial court on compassionate ground to allot petitioner land in lieu of the land in question although lis between the parties in respect of land in dispute was finally decided by respondent No. 2 on 19.7.85.
8. From the facts and circumstances stated above I am of the opinion that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lehru and Others (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. Mandatory provisions contained under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 make it crystal clear that any act and omission of a party in suit which tends to defeat the ends of justice has to be arrested by the courts either by issuing injunction or by appointing a receiver. A wrong doer either taking or retaining possession of suit land otherwise than in accordance with law is not entitled to get protection of Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. To my mind giving protection to a wrong doer under Section 212 of the said Act would amount travesty of justice and would also run counter to the spirit of said section.
10. It is important to mention that much water has run under the bridge after decision in case of Principal, Patna College, Patna and Ors. v. Kalyan Sriniwas Raman reported in : [1966]1SCR974 where it was held that where there is a question about interpretation of any Act, Rules or Regulations which are capable of two constructions in such cases it would not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision of the authority or tribunal on the ground that the construction placed by such authority or tribunal on the relevant Enactment, Rule or Regulation appears to it less reasonable than the alternative construction which has been placed and accepted by such authority or tribunal.
11. In my opinion the impugned orders passed by all the courts below are eminently just and proper and material Justice has been done between the parties by these orders. No case is made out to issue a prerogative writ.
12. In view of the fact and law what has been stated above, the instant writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed in limine.
13. The Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Rajasthan Canal Project, Barmer, respondent No. 3, is hereby directed to decide the suit itself expeditiously at an early date. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Rajasthan Canal Project, Barmer, respondent No. 3.