ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Briefly noted facts of the present writ petition are that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition and injunction under Section 53, 181 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 along with an application under Section 212 Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the respondents with respect to agricultural land is situated at village Baga, Tehsil Jodhpur measuring 76 bigha 8 biswa.

Learned trial Court has passed an interim order dated 21.12.2022 on the application to the effect that neither construction should be done on land in question nor it should be transferred.

Aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2022, respondent No.1 - Chhanwarlal Kacchawa filed an appeal along with stay application before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.10.2025 decided the interim application finally and granted permission to respondent No.1 for raising the construction.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Act of 1955 before Board of Revenue.

The revision petition was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 07.11.2025 observing that as per Section 230 of the Act of 1955, revision petition is not maintainable against the interim order. Therefore, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur the petitioners has filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur committed an error in granting interim order in favour of the respondent No.1 holding that the respondent is a bonafide purchaser and thus he may be permitted to raise construction on the land in question while ignoring the fact that the suit was filed for partition and injunction under Section 53, 181 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. He submits that the petitioners being aggrieved of the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur preferred revision before the Board of Revenue, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2025 on the ground that the revision is not maintainable against the interim order granted by Revenue Appellate Authority. Counsel further submits that the Board of Revenue has also committed an error by rejecting the revision filed by the petitioners as the impugned order ought to be treated as a final order against which the revision was filed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Board has rightly rejected the revision filed by the petitioners against the interim order granted by Revenue Appellate Authority, as revision is not maintainable before Board of Revenue. He also submits that the appeal filed by the respondent is still pending adjudication before the Revenue Appellate Authority thus, no relief is required to be given to the petitioner.

5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case.

6. As regards the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the same may be exercised only in respect of a case decided by a subordinate revenue court where no appeal lies either to the Board or to a civil court. Additionally, such revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only on the ground of jurisdictional error, either for failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by law or for material irregularity in its exercise.

7. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, a revision petition is maintainable only in respect of a decided case, and that too on limited grounds of jurisdictional error. Passing of an ad-interim order cannot be equated with a final adjudication; therefore, such an order does not constitute a “decided case” within the meaning of Section 230 of the Act of 1955. It is well settled that ad-interim orders are generally passed at the initial stage while issuing notic