ORDER :

ANUROOP SINGHI, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2026 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (BOR in Appeal Decree/T.A. No. 782/2024/Sikar, whereby the learned BOR has set aside the order dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar (RAA) and has restored the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by the Assistant Collector-II, Sikar.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the original suit bearing Case No. 01/2009 was instituted by respondents No. 1 and 2 before the Assistant Collector-II, Sikar seeking declaration of rights, permanent injunction and correction of revenue entries and it came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 04.09.2023, whereby the respondents No. 1 and 2 were declared 1/3^rd share holders each in land bearing Khasra Nos. 461, 462 and 464 and 1/24^th share holders each in land bearing Khasra Nos. 475 and 476 situated in Village Gram Sevad Chhoti, Tehsil and District Sikar.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the RAA, Sikar which was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2024, whereby the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2023 was set aside and without recording any finding on merits, the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector-II, Sikar for afresh consideration on merits, on the basis of oral and written evidence available on record and after framing an issue of limitation. Thereafter, the respondents No. 1 and 2 so also the petitioner preferred appeals against the order dated 31.01.2024 before the learned BOR, and vide impugned order dated 03.02.2026, while on one hand the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, on the other hand the appeal filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 was allowed vide which not only the remand order passed by the RAA, Sikar dated 31.01.2024 was set aside, but even the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2023 was restored after recording findings on merits.

At this stage, it is relevant to note that vide order dated 31.01.2024, the RAA, Sikar had set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2023 and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector-II, Sikar for afresh consideration, without recording any findings on merits.

3. Mr. Amit Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as both the petitioner and respondents No.1 & 2 were aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the RAA, Sikar vide which the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector-II, Sikar, respective appeals were filed before the learned BOR which were registered as Appeal No. 782/2024 titled as Singari & Ors. Versus Chunki Devi & Ors. and Appeal No. 954/2024 titled as Chunki Devi Versus Singari & Ors.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though both the said appeals were filed under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’), the learned BOR has adjudicated the same by referring the said appeals to have been filed under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 as is evident from the inaugural paragraph of order dated 03.02.2026.

The primary argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the RAA, Sikar vide its order dated 31.01.2024 had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and had simply remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector-II, Sikar for afresh adjudication, in the event the learned BOR was not in agreement with the findings arrived at by the RAA, Sikar, the maximum it could have done was to set aside the order dated 31.01.2024 and remand the matter back to the RAA, Sikar for afresh consideration. Under no circumstances, the suit could have been decreed while arriving at independent findings on merits.

5. Learned counsel further submits that passing of the impugned order has gravely prejudiced the rights of the petitioner, in as much as it has taken away the petitioner’s r