IMPORTANT POINT
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 by lower Revenue Courts – Merely passing of an ad-interim order cannot be said to be a decision on interim application filed and same cannot be treated to come in category of a decided case.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Briefly noted facts of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was allotted land for establishment of a 500 Mega Watt Solar Power Project in Tehsil Bap, Village Bhadla, by the District Collector, Phalodi on 04.03.2024. However, the private respondent filed a revenue suit under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Bap.

3. The learned Court of Assistant Collector, Bap, vide order dated 25.11.2024, refused to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of the private respondent. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2024 the private respondent preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. On 26.11.2024, learned Revenue Appellate Authority granted ad-interim injunction directing the petitioner to maintain the status quo regarding the land in question. Against the said injunction order, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, which was dismissed on 20.12.2024 without addressing the factual position or the submissions made by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner-company has preferred this writ petition to challenge the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, dismissing the Revision Petition No.9011/2024 filed by the petitioner under Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Board of Revenue has committed an error while rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner. He submits that the land has been allotted to the petitioner-company for establishing the Solar Plant and, therefore, the private respondent had no authority to assail the validity of the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the Assistant Collector has rightly rejected the application filed by the private respondent seeking interim injunction, however, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has passed ad-interim order on 26.11.2024. Learned counsel submits that the Solar Project of the petitioner is a time bound project and if the same is not completed within the stipulated period, the petitioner will have to suffer an irreparable loss. He submits that against the adinterim order granted by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition invoking the provisions of Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, however, the same has been rejected in a cursory manner without appreciating the fact that if the order passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority on 26.11.2024 is not interfered with then the project of the petitioner will be at stake and the purpose for which the land has been allotted, shall stand frustrated. Learned counsel submits that the revision petition has wrongly been dismissed being not maintainable. He therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 20.12.2024 may be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the learned Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner as the same is not maintainable against ad-interim order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. He submits that the stay application preferred by the private respondents is still pending consideration and the same has not been decided, therefore, the Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the revision petition filed under Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the revision petition is maintainable only against the decision of the subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies either to the Board or to a Civil Court. He further submits that as per Section 230 of the Act of 1955, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised on