Back
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Sahab Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar Revenue Department – Respondent
ORDER
1. The case comes up on an application preferred by the respondents for early hearing of the case.
2. The same is not opposed by the counsel for the petitioner.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application the application for early hearing is allowed. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal today itself.
4. Brief facts noted for disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner along with respondent Nos. 5 to 9 filed a suit under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur, (Camp-Padampur). Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The Sub Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur, (Camp- Padampur) allowed the application for temporary injunction and passed the interim order dated 29.07.2005. Against this order dated 29.07.2005, the respondent/defendant Nos. 1 to 3 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority initially passed an interim order on 03.09.2005, whereby, the order dated 29.07.2005 was stayed, however, ultimately the appeal preferred by the respondent/ defenda
The central legal point established is the requirement for fair procedure and a reasonable opportunity of hearing in decision-making processes, as well as the importance of adhering to the principles....
The court reinforced the necessity of adhering to procedural remedies in legal disputes to ensure proper judicial functioning.
The Board of Revenue has the power to set aside the judgment and decree if it finds that the review petition was wrongly dismissed by the lower court.
Revision under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 applies only to final orders, not interim orders.
Revisions under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are maintainable only against final decisions; interim orders do not constitute 'decided cases'.
The court affirmed that revisions against interlocutory orders can be maintainable under certain circumstances, and emphasized the importance of timely adjudication in tenancy disputes.
The Board of Revenue must issue notice to all parties before allowing revision petitions to uphold the principles of natural justice.
Revision petitions against ad-interim orders are not maintainable under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, as such orders are not 'decided cases'.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
