Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Narayan son of Suja, (since deceased) through Lrs – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Dudu Head Office Maujamabad, District Jaipur, Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 20.12.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as “Board”) by which the reference application filed under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenanct Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”) by Additional Collector, Dudu against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2015 has been allowed and the aforesaid judgment has been quashed and set-aside.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming his rights over the property in question before the court of Assistant Collector, Dudu and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.1995 and the petitioner was declared as Khatedar of the property in question. Learned counsel submits that instead of assailing the aforesaid judgment by way of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, a reference was sent to the Board for quashing the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel submits that in such like matters, reference application under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 is not maintainable before the Boar
The Board of Revenue cannot set aside judicial decrees under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, as this power is administrative and not judicial.
The High Court will not interfere with an order passed by a lower court or tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India if quashing the order would result in restoring an illegal order.
The mutation in land revenue cannot be cancelled without addressing and potentially invalidating prior orders, ensuring procedural integrity.
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'.
Revisions under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are maintainable only against final decisions; interim orders do not constitute 'decided cases'.
The court established that remand requires a clear finding of necessity for retrial, which must be justified by the appellate authority.
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
