The main legal point established in the judgment is that before passing any adverse order, opportunity of hearing should be given to the affected party, and setting aside orders without providing an opportunity of hearing amounts to judicial impropriety and illegal functioning.

1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that the petitioner filed an appeal before Settlement Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar (for short 'the RAA') challenging judgment and decree dated 14.10.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Kishangarh Bass, whereby suit filed by one Sultan Singh for division of holding along with prayer of injunction was decreed. The petitioner was not a party to that suit and as soon as the aforesaid judgment passed by the SDO came into his knowledge, he filed the appeal before the RAA. The RAA vide its order dated 07.01.2010 passed an ad-interim order in favour of the petitioner. The respondents filed an application under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955(for short 'the Act') before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan at Ajmer (for short 'the Board of Revenue'). The Board of revenue vide its order dated 18.09.2014 quashed and set aside aforesaid order dated 07.01.2010 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41, Rule 21 read with Section 151 CPC praying for rehearing and quashing and setting aside of aforesaid order but the Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.12.2014 dismissed the application of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the power under Section 212 of the Act which was exercised by the Board of Revenue on 18.09.2014 was not tenable as it was exercised against order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the RAA, which order was appellable/revisable as per law and the same could not have been entertained under Section 221 of the Act. It is argued that power under Section 221 of the Act cannot be invoked where the appeal/revision lies against the order. The power can be exercised when there is no remedy provided under the law. It is argued that order dated 18.09.2014 has been passed by the Board of Revenue without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner whereas it is settled principal of law that before passing any adverse order, opportunity of hearing should have been given to the effected party. Further, the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside of aforesaid order and rehearing has also wrongly been dismissed by the Board of Revenue.

3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 to 4 opposed the writ petition and argued that power under Section 221 of the Act has rightly been exercised by the Board of Revenue. The RAA ought to have first decided application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before passing any ad-interim order in favour of the petitioner. The appellate authority ought to have decided the question of locus of the petitioner to file the appeal before passing any interim order in his favour. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the Board of Revenue has committed a grave error of law in setting aside order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the RAA on the premise that it could not have passed order of stay without condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by accepting application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. But even, this argument could have been accepted if and when the application was finally allowed by the Board of Revenue after it had issued notice to plaintiffs respondents in whose favour order impugned before the Board of Revenue was passed and which order was sought to be upturned at the instance of the defendants. This Court, in the recent past, has come across several such orders passed by Single Benches of the Board of Revenue in revision petitions where orders passed by the trial courts/RAAs are being set aside ex-parte without issuing notice or without providing opportunity of hearing to the opposite/effected party which amounts to judicial impropriety and shows illegal functioning of the Board of Revenue. This Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10180/2015(Om P