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 appellate jurisdiction.

Order :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present writ petition are that the petitioners are Khatedar-tenants and co-sharers of agricultural land comprising Khasra Nos. 280, 280/1, 281, 283, 352/3, and other adjoining parcels situated in Village Imam Nagar, Tehsil Phalsund, District Jaisalmer. The said land contains ancestral residential structures, water tanks, and cattle sheds, and the petitioners have remained in continuous, settled possession and use of these lands for several decades. Respondent No. 1, Mange Khan, who is having and in possession adjacent land bearing Khasra No. 634/349 filed an application (Revenue Application No. 73/2025) before the SDO/Assistant Collector, Bhaniyana, seeking the grant of a new access path under Section 251 -A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The petitioners appeared before the SDO and filed a detailed reply and objections, categorically asserting that the proposed new pathway traverses their long-established residential property.

3. The SDO/Assistant Collector, despite serious objections regarding the demolition of existing property, passed an order dated 13.10.2025 (Annex. P/1), allowing the said application and sanctioning an 18-feet-wide pathway through the petitioners’ land.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2025 (Annex.P/1), the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority, vide order dated 30.10.2025 (Annex. P/2), directed maintenance of status quo concerning the petitioners’ property

5. Respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2025 (Annex.P/2), filed a revision petition before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated 03.11.2025 (Annex.P/4) without considering the reasoning recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority or requisitioning the record, allowed the stay application and stayed the operation of the order dated 30.10.2025. Consequently, the pathway sanctioned by the SDO was revived.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 30.10.2025 (Annex. P/2) passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority is merely an interim order, and the appeal remains pending adjudication. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that the Board of Revenue gravely erred in entertaining the revision petition filed by respondent No. 1 against an interim order, which is not appealable or revisable under law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contends that the order dated 30.10.2025 is a final order passed in the presence of both parties, and hence, the respondent No.1 rightly invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue.

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

7. 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

8. 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 Secti