A first appellate authority is mandatorily required to adjudicate an appeal on its merits by re-appreciating evidence and legal contentions. Remanding a matter without addressing these core issues denies parties their statutory right to appeal and necessitates judicial correction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant DB Special Appeal (writ) is preferred by appellant (non-petitioners), aggrieved from judgment dated 18.03.2026 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3562/2026, "Chunki Devi Vs. Singri and Ors.", passed by learned single judge in following manner:

"21.Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed, and the order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the learned Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar, to decide the appeal on its own merits, without being influenced by the findings arrived at by the learned Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer in its order dated 03.02.2026 and so also by this Court in the present order.

22. Considering the fact that the Revenue Suit was filed way back in the year 2009, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar may make all possible efforts to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from today, i.e. 18.03.2026, strictly in accordance with law."

2. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that a revenue suit was filed before the Assistant Collector, Sikar for declaration, partition, permanent injunction and correction of revenue entries on the ground that appellants (plaintiffs) are ancestors of Jalu Ram and entitled for 2/3 share in ancestral property. He further submitted that the Assistant Collector after recording evidence of both the parties had decreed the revenue suit in favor of appellants on 04.09.2023, but the judgment and decree was challenged by respondent No. 1 (defendant), writ petitioner, before the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) and vide order dated 31.01.2024, the appeal was allowed and matter is remitted back to the Assistant Collector for decision afresh. He further submitted that a second appeal is preferred before the Board of Revenue by both the parties which was decided on 03.02.2026. He also submitted that the Board of Revenue has allowed the appeal preferred by the appellants and set aside the remand order dated 31.01.2024 and upheld the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Collector but dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1-writ petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for appellants also submitted that the writ petitioner has filed a writ petition which was allowed by learned Single Judge and the order passed by the Board of Revenue was set aside and matter is remitted back to the Revenue Appellate Authority (first appellate authority). He also submitted that after considering the legal position and providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties, the suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector, but same was erroneously set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority, and after correcting the mistake committed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the Revenue Board has set aside the judgment of RAA.

4. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Yeshwant Sakhalkar Vs. Hirabat Kamal , (2004) 6 SCC 71, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Visan Kumar , reported as AIR 2009 SC 1999, and submitted that there is a distinction between Writ of Certiorari and a superintending jurisdiction as provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that it is duty of this Hon’ble Court to determine the nature of writ on the basis of pleadings in the writ petition and when it is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Hon’ble Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere. He further submitted that even this Hon’ble Cou