Order

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure-8) passed by learned Board of Revenue (BOR), Ajmer, in Revision/TA/2025/12202/Jaipur, titled as M/s. Sudarshan Builders & Developers Vs. Jaipur Farming Products Private Ltd. And Others vide which, the effect and operation of the ad-interim order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Jaipur, in Appeal No.2006/2025 dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure-6), has been stayed.

2. Mr. S.S. Hora, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the revision petition filed before the learned BOR against the ad-interim order passed by RAA dated 10.12.2025, by invoking the provisions of Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”) was not maintainable, as according to the provisions of Section 230 of the Act of 1955, a revision is maintainable only against a final order and not against an ad-interim order.

3. Learned counsel further submits that it is not in dispute that the appeal filed by the petitioners before RAA is still pending and the order which was passed on 10.12.2025 is also an ad-interim order.

4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Lala Vs. Krishna Kumar Verma and Others reported in (2025) SCC Online Raj 7068, and also upon the judgments passed by this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in N.T.P.C. Renewable Energy Vs. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Others reported in (2025) SCC Online Raj 7091 and in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1593/2024 titled as Ranjeet Singh and Others Vs. Dal Singh and Others

5. Thus, learned counsel prays that the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 be set aside and the writ petition be allowed.

6. Per contra, Mr. Ram Chandra Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, submits that the order dated 19.12.2025 has been rightly passed by the learned BOR as the appeal filed by the petitioners before RAA under Section 225 of the Act of 1955, itself was not maintainable, as even the said appeal before the RAA was preferred against an ad-interim order dated 03.11.2025 passed by Assistant Collector (Fast Track), Amer, Jaipur.

7. Learned counsel further submits that as the order passed by RAA dated 10.12.2025 was erroneous, the revision petition was rightly filed under Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Act of 1955.

8. Learned counsel also submits that Section 221 of the Act of 1955 grants the learned BOR to exercise general superintendence control over all the Sub-ordinate Revenue Courts and thus, the revision petition has to be considered in light of Section 221 of the Act of 1955 as well.

9. Learned counsel also submits that, alternatively, a direction be issued to the RAA to decide the appeal itself within a time bound manner and till the disposal of the appeal by RAA, the status quo as it exists today be maintained.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

11. Section 230 of the Act of 1955 reads as under:-

“230. Power of the Board to call for cases—

The Board may call for the record of any case decided by any subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies either to the Board or to a civil court under section 239 and if such court appears —

(a) to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or

(b) to have failed. to exercise jurisdiction so vested;

or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

Board may pass such orders in the case as thinks fit.”

12. The relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Lala (supra), reads as under:-

“6. The language of Section 230 of the Act is unambiguous that the Court can exercise power of revision subject to fulfillment o