Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Sundar @ Sundarlal - Petitioner
Versus
Kajod and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5394 of 2024
Decided On : 18-04-2024
(A) Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 230 - Revision petition against interim order - The Board of Revenue's power to call for records is limited to cases where no appeal lies - The Board cannot exercise revision powers against interim orders when an appeal is available - The impugned order was set aside. (Paras 6-8)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Board's jurisdiction is defined by the Act, and it cannot act beyond the powers conferred by law. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for partition and declaration, with an interim order to maintain status quo, which was stayed by the Board in revision.
Findings of Court:
The Board is not vested with the power of revision against interim orders when an appeal is available.
Issues: Whether the Board could invoke revision powers against an interim order when an appeal exists.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Board's powers are limited to cases without an available appeal, thus the impugned order was set aside.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short 'Board') in revision petition No.1697/2024 titled as Kajod v. Sundar @ Sundarlal.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed a suit under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955 (for short 'the Act') for partition and declaration. In an application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC, interim order dated 14.01.2016 was passed to maintain status quo. In revision filed by respondent No.1 against order dated 14.01.2016 the Board stayed operation of the order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that revision power of the Board could not have been invoked against the interim order.
4. As per the petition, respondent No.1 is contesting respondent and is represented by Mr. Manoj Ojla, Advocate to whom advance copy was supplied.
5. Learned counsel respondent defends the impugned order by stating that the appellate authority was non-functional, hence there was no remedy available except to file revision.
6. Section 230 of the Act is reproduced below:-
(a) to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(b) to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
Board my pass such orders in the case is it thinks fit."
7. From reading of the Section, it is evident that the Board can call for the record of case decided by the subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies either to the Board or to a civil court. Circumstances for exercising powers have been mentioned in Clause (a) to (c).
8. In the present case, it is not disputed that there is remedy of appeal against the order dated 14.01.2016 and also that the suit has yet not been decided. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside as the Board is not vested with power of revision against interim order.
9. The writ petition is allowed.
10. The respondent shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law for redressal of surviving grievances.
The Board of Revenue cannot exercise revision powers against interim orders when an appeal is available under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
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'.
A revision petition against an ex-parte ad-interim stay order is not maintainable if an appeal is available under the relevant legal provisions.
A revision petition before the Board of Revenue is not maintainable when an appeal provision is available. An aggrieved party can either move the appellate court or approach the same court which pass....
Revision petitions under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are not maintainable against interim orders, which are not final adjudications, reinforcing the distinction between revisional and ap....
Revision – Law mandates maintainability of revision petition only in a “decided” case by subordinate revenue court where no appeal lies and secondly, on the ground of jurisdictional error committed b....
Revision petitions against ad-interim orders are not maintainable under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, as such orders are not '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.
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
