Amitava Roy, C.J.@mdashHeard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears on behalf of the respondents, as the record reveals, the service on them is complete. Having regard to the year of registration of the appeal, we are not inclined to defer the adjudication and disposal thereof.
2. Shortly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent No. 5 herein instituted a suit in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Bharatpur along with an application for temporary injunction against the appellants questioning the purchase by them of land pertaining to Khasras No. 201, 202, 208, 209, 210 and 211 of village Dhehari from its recorded Khatedari of Shri Kalua by a registered sale deed dt. 20.6.1990 and also to annul their claim to have their names registered as owner thereof in the revenue records. As the learned Assistant Collector, Bharatpur by order dt. 22.6.1990 on the prayer for temporary injunction, restrained the appellants to alienate the land and also directed them to maintain status quo and further restrained them from get their names in the mutation, they preferred Appeal No. 547/1990 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur and it, vide order dt. 14.1.1992 interfered with the restraint as above. The Appellate Authority also found the appellants to be in lawful possession of the land involved. In substance therefore, the prayer for temporary injunction made against the appellants was vacated. The respondent No. 5 being aggrieved unsuccessfully, approached the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan with Review Petition No. 24/1993 which was rejected on 25.11.1993. Consequent upon this, the jurisdictional Tehsildar sanctioned mutation in favour of the appellants qua the land involved. It was at the stage that the respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bharatpur questioning the legality of the orders of mutation. The appeals having been allowed the appellants, filed second appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur which interfered with the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bharatpur.
3. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 5 preferred Revision Petitions No. LR/119/97/Bharatpur, LR/120/97/Bharatpur, LR/121/97/Bharatpur, LR/122/97/Bharatpur before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan. By judgment and order dt. 31.5.1999, the decision of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur in favour of the appellants was interfered with and it was held in substance that in view of the pendency of the suit between the parties, entries in the revenue record in favour of the appellants ought not to have been granted. Noticeably, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur while allowing the appeal of the appellants and sustaining the mutation of the names in the revenue record had taken note of the earlier round of litigation between the parties. The appellants challenge against the determination made by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan having failed before the learned Single Judge, they are in appeal.
4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellants while tracing the factual back ground has argued that the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan having by its judgment and order dt. 25.11.1993 rejected the respondent No. 5''s revision petition before it on the aspect of the injunction, it ought not to have on same set of facts taken a contrary view on the aspect of mutation involving the same land. According to the learned counsel, having regard to the constricted scope of scrutiny of the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan in the revision proceedings before it in terms of Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in absence of any jurisdictional error in the adjudication of the appellants'' appeal by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur. The impugned order dt. 31.5.1999 is non-est and that therefore, the learned Single Judge fell in error in not interfering therewith.
5. The pleaded facts and documents on record and the arguments advanced have been duly analysed. As recorded hereinabove the issue of injunction between the parties arising out of the suit filed by the respondent No. 5 concerning the same land had attained finality. The mutation in favour of the appellants was a logical consequence of the refusal of the grant of injunction by the Board. On a perusal of the judgment and order dt. 6.11.1997 rendered by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, we are prima facie of the view that the relevant facts available before that forum on that date had been rightly appreciated. To reiterate while sustaining the mutation of the names of the appellants in the revenue record, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur being conscious of the fact that the suit between the parties was pending duly restrained the appellants from alienating the land involved. The reasons recorded by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan in the impugned judgment and order dt. 31.05.1999 reveal that the consideration for which it did interfere with the decision of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur was the pendency of the suit between the parties for which in its perception the mutation of the names of the appellants in the revenue record was impermissible. In view of the fact that the same forum in the earlier round of litigation between the parties had held that no injunction against the appellants was warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and that as referred to hereinabove, the mutation of their names in the revenue record is a logical corollary thereof, we do not feel persuaded to accept the aforementioned reasoning recorded by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan to interfere with the judgment and order dt. 6.11.1997 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur. We do not find as well that the adjudication made by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur suffers from any jurisdictional defect. The plea made on behalf of the appellants in this behalf, merits acceptance.
6. In the above premise, we find ourselves in disagreement with the view recorded by the learned Single Judge and thus the impugned judgment and order is interfered with.
7. As the materials placed before us, do not reveal that the suit instituted by the respondent No. 5 against the appellants, has been disposed of finally, this determination being on the incidental issue of mutation would be subject to the final adjudication made in the suit. The appeal is allowed. No cost.
