ORDER :

Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 06.07.2023 (Annex.7) passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan ('BOR'), order dated 17.02.2023 (Annex.6) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur ('RAA') and order dated 02.02.2023 (Annex.4) passed by the Assistant Collector, Osian.

2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a revenue suit in the year 2018 before the Assistant Collector and SDO, Osian for getting permanent injunction in relation to the land in dispute under Section 188 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955 ('the Act'), which is pending consideration.

3. It is claimed that on 01.02.2023, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a second suit for getting permanent injunction against the petitioner for the same disputed land on the same facts/cause of action, which is nothing but abuse of process of the Court as the second suit on the same cause is not maintainable.

4. It is alleged that on 02.02.2023 as the Assistant Collector, Osian was not holding the post and Tehsildar was having charge, he passed order of status quo (Annex.4) against the petitioner. It is submitted that the Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to pass the order in absence of a regularly posted Assistant Collector-cum-SDO.

5. Feeling aggrieved of order dated 02.02.2023, the petitioner filed appeal before the RAA, Jodhpur, who by order dated 17.02.2023 (Annex.6) came to the conclusion that as the petitioner without filing reply to the application filed under Section 212 of the Act, has filed appeal against the interim order, there was no necessity to pass any order on the stay application and the petitioner was directed to file reply before the SDO and make submissions there.

6. Aggrieved of the denial of interim order by the RAA, the petitioner filed revision petition before the BOR. The BOR, after hearing the parties and noticing the facts as noticed herein-before, came to the conclusion that as the matter was pending for grant of temporary injunction before the original authority and the order dated 17.02.2023 was an interim order, the revision petition under Section 230 of the Act was not maintainable and consequently, rejected the same.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that exercise of powers by the Tehsildar while being in-charge of office of the SDO, is ex-facie without jurisdiction and therefore, the RAA and BOR fell in error in not interfering in the order dated 02.02.2023.

8. Submissions have been made that under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('LR Act'), an officer, who assumed the charge of the office of absentee officer can perform routine duty of the absentee officer and as the order passed dated 02.02.2023 is not a routine order, the same could not have been passed. Therefore, the order passed by the Tehsildar while performing the duties of absentee SDO, is ex-facie without jurisdiction and consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Reliance has been placed on judgment in Hari Ram v. Collector Bikaner : 1964 RLW 120.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

10. Insofar as, the nature of order passed by the SDO dated 02.02.2023 is concerned, the same is only an ex-parte ad interim order. Thereafter, the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by RAA is also an interim order refusing to grant interim order qua order dated 02.02.2023, while the appeal was still pending and therefore, the BOR was justified in coming to the conclusion that