[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Husain Khan vs Mange Khan (2025:Rj-Jd:52444) on 4 December, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:52444]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN


                               AT JODHPUR


                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22229/2025


1.       Husain Khan S/o Merdeen Khan, aged about 58 years,
         Resident    of   Imam       Nagar,       Tehsil         Phalsund,   District
         Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
2.       Hasam Khan S/o Merdeen Khan, aged about 56 years,
         Resident    of   Imam       Nagar,       Tehsil         Phalsund,   District
         Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
                                                                     ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       Mange Khan S/o Hothi Khan, Resident of Imam Nagar,
         Tehsil Phalsund, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
2.       Ali Khan S/o Haji Hamal Khan, Resident of Imam Nagar,
         Tehsil Phalsund, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
3.       Nizam Khan S/o Haji Hamal Khan, Resident of Imam
         Nagar, Tehsil Phalsund, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
4.       Lakhe Khan S/o Haji Hamal Khan, Resident of Imam
         Nagar, Tehsil Phalsund, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
5.       Sale Mohammad S/o Fateh Khan, Resident of Imam
         Nagar, Tehsil Phalsund, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
6.       Rais Khan S/o Fateh Khan, Resident of Imam Nagar,
         Tehsil Phalsund, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
7.       Nasruddin S/o Bachchu Khan, Resident of Imam Nagar,
         Tehsil Phalsund, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
8.       Safi Khan S/o Bachchu Khan, Resident of Imam Nagar,
         Tehsil Phalsund, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
9.       Ghafoor Khan S/o Rehman Khan, Resident of Imam
         Nagar, Tehsil Phalsund, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
10.      Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Branch Bhikhodai.
11.      State Bank of India, Branch Pokaran.
12.      Punjab National Bank, Branch Undu.
13.      State Bank of India, Branch Phalsund.
14.      Mr. Tehsildar, Phalasund.
                                                                   ----Respondents


                      (Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 05:19:24 PM)
                     (Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 12:00:50 AM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:52444]                  (2 of 10)                    [CW-22229/2025]



For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate with
                                Mr. Shubham Ojha
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. C.S. Kotwani
                                Mr. Ram Raghunath
                                Mr. Avdesh Parashar
                                Ms. Bhavya Gautam



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

04/12/2025

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.

(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 05:19:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52444] (3 of 10) [CW-22229/2025]

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

(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 05:19:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52444] (4 of 10) [CW-22229/2025]

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 Section 230 of the Act of 1955. It is well settled that ad-interim

orders are generally passed at the initial stage while issuing notice

to the opposite party. Once the opposite side enters appearance,

both parties are afforded a hearing, and the interim application is

thereafter finally decided. Thus, a revision against an ex parte ad-

interim order is not maintainable under Section 230 of the Act, as

such orders are inherently temporary and non-final in nature.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ad-interim orders

are generally passed on the initial date of the case while issuing

notices to the other side and after the notice, the other side can

(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 05:19:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52444] (5 of 10) [CW-22229/2025]

appear before the concerned Court and put-forth its

defence/submissions. Since at the stage of ad-interim order, the

application for interim injunction is not decided, therefore, the

revision is not maintainable. The simple logic in the considered

opinion of this Court is that once the other side appears before the

Court, the biparte hearing takes place and then after the

opportunity of hearing given to both the sides, ultimately, the

Court decides the stay application/application for interim

injunction or any other such application.

10. The Full Bench of the Board of Revenue had an occasion to

deal with the similar and akin question in the case of Jagdish

Prasad Vs. Bhopal Ram & Ors. (Revision/LR/9867/2012/

Nagaur), decided on 12.03.2014 and the finding arrived at by the

Full Bench of the Board of Revenue on the same point is relevant

in the present facts and circumstances of the case, which too

reads as under:

"Maintainability of Revision Petitions in the Board:

62- The Board has been entrusted with the powers to call for the record of its subordinate courts and examine their impugned orders under the revisional jurisdiction provided under Section 230 of the Act. In general such revisional jurisdiction is entrusted to all the High Courts, Tribunals and Revenue Boards to have control over their subordinate courts.

The Act of 1955 provides Section 230 as revisional jurisdiction to the Board. The provision of Section 230 is reproduced 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 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, the Board may pass such orders in the case as it thinks

(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 05:19:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52444] (6 of 10) [CW-22229/2025]

fit."

63- The plain reading of the above provisions of law unequivocally suggests that a revision petition can be filed against a case decided by any subordinate Revenue Court under this Act in which no appeal lies either to the Board or to a civil court. Earlier this provision of law was analogous to the revisional powers provided to High courts under section 115 of the Code.

64- This is also very relevant to mention here that Government of India constituted a committee headed by Justice Malimath for expeditious disposal of civil litigation. This committee noticed that record of the lower courts is often sent to the High Courts in revision proceedings resulting in virtual stay of proceedings in the Trial Courts. The committee also had a view that scope of interference by revisional Courts against interlocutory orders should be bare minimum. On the basis of the committee's report, the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999 was introduced in the Parliament and Section 115 of the Code was also amended in light of the observations of the committee. But the provision under section 230 of the Act still remains intact.

65- Under the revisional jurisdiction, basically two types of petitions are filed before the Board. Firstly, against the final or interim orders passed by the Trial Courts or Appellate Courts in the proceedings under the provisions of this Act. Secondly, against the orders passed by the Trial Courts or Appellate Courts on interlocutory applications under various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the proceedings under this Act. In the case in hand, this court has to examine the maintainability of revision petitions filed under Section 230 of the Act assailing the ad- interim ex-parte orders passed by the Trial Courts or Appellate Courts.

66- Hon'ble Apex Court has held in D.L.F. Housing and Construction Co. V. Swaroop Singh (AIR 1971 (SC) 2324) that exercise of revisionary jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and a revising court is not bound to interfere with the impugned order only on the ground that conditions provided in the provisions of revision are satisfied. The Apex Court also observed that if the impugned order is interlocutory and the aggrieved party has other efficacious remedy in form of an appeal, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked. It has also been held that revision is not competent to correct errors of facts, however, gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the court to try such disputes. The Apex Court has held that revisional jurisdiction is not equal to the appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, only jurisdictional errors

(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 05:19:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52444] (7 of 10) [CW-22229/2025]

with material irregularity can be corrected under the revisional jurisdiction.

67- The scope of the revision jurisdiction is very restrictive in nature as has been held in Bakhtawan V. Mandir Murti Shri Thakur Ji (1968 RRD 394). The revisional court has the powers to entertain a revision only:-

(1) Where jurisdiction is vested but not exercised, or (2) Exercised jurisdiction when not vested, or (3) Where material irregularity or illegality is committed in exercise of jurisdiction.

68- Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Managing Director, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. V. Ajit Prasad (AIR 1973 (SC) 76) that the revisional court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law but one thing is clear that it has jurisdiction to make that order. Where it was not the case that the First Appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with manifest irregularity, in such cases, the revisional court has no jurisdiction.

69- Hon'ble Apex Court also held in the case of Suresh Chandra Nanhorya V. Rajendra Rajak and others (2006 (7) SCC 800) that a revisional court cannot ignore the basic principle of natural justice which is essence of fair adjudication and which is deeply rooted in tradition and conscience of the judicial system. Therefore, any order which is passed against a party by the revisional court cannot be passed without providing an opportunity of hearing.

70- In the case of Harak Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (1970 RLW 320), the Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court has held that revisional jurisdiction of the court can be invoked only when the subordinate court appears to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It was also held that whether particular evidence is admissible in accordance with law or not, is a question of law which the Trial Court is entitled to decide and if any manifest error has been committed in deciding that question, it cannot form a ground for revisional jurisdiction. In Bhimraj and others Vs. Board of Revenue and others (1998 RRD 355), Hon'ble High Court has held that as a revisional authority, the Board of Revenue may not agree with the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate but that itself does not form a ground for the Board to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.

71- In Raja Ramkaran Vs. B. Ramulu (AIR 1982 (A.P.) 256) the Hon'ble High Court has held that unless there is a manifest error or material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction,

(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 05:19:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52444] (8 of 10) [CW-22229/2025]

revision petitions cannot be entertained. The relevant extract of the judgment is as under:-

"8.... There is absolutely no semblance of irregularity in the exercise of power of jurisdiction and the error, factual or legal, if any in the course of passing the order does not impinge upon the jurisdiction vested in the court. The alleged intention of the defendant to avert or by pass the proceedings before the trial court cannot be considered as a material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the appellate court. The ethics of a litigant in choosing forum is not a factor can be countenanced for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the court. The alleged dilatory attitude of the party cannot sterilize the legitimate jurisdiction of the court. ....It is well settled as laid down by Division Bench of this court that the aggrieved party can file an appeal as against an interim order and such appeal is competent and the appellate court is competent to entertain it and to pass appropriate order. .."

72- Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held in the case of Sumatiben Maganlal Manani V. Uttam Chand Kashi Prasad Shah and anr. (2011) 7 SCC 328) as under:-

"34. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the High Court. On the basis of the material available on record, as discussed in detail in the judgment of the appellate court, it was perfectly justified in arriving at the finding of sub-letting against defendant No.1. On a careful consideration of the matter, we find that the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, committed a mistake in interfering with the setting aside the findings of fact properly arrived at by the courts below. The judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable by any reckoning."

73- In light of the guiding pronouncements of the superior courts as discussed hereinabove, and existing legal provisions of Section 230 of the Act, this bench is of the considered opinion that:-

(1) No revision is maintainable before the Board against ad- interim ex-parte orders passed by the Trial Courts or the Appellate Courts. As per the provisions of law only such decided cases under this Act can be assailed in revision before the Board., where no efficacious remedy of appeal is available. (2) Revisional jurisdiction is not equal to the appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, only jurisdictional errors with material irregularity can be corrected under the revisional jurisdiction.

(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 05:19:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52444] (9 of 10) [CW-22229/2025]

(3) Unless there is a manifest error or material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction, revision petitions cannot be entertained.

(4) An order of the Trial Court or the Appellate Court cannot be assailed in revision on the ground that the Court below has recorded erroneous findings on facts or law, if that Court had jurisdiction to pass the order sought to be revised.

74. ***** ***** **** ****

Question no 1:- ***** ***** ***** ****

Answer:- ***** ***** ***** ****

Question no 2:- ***** ***** ***** ****

Answer:- ***** ***** ***** ****

Question no 3:- Whether a revision petition under section 230 of the Act is maintainable before the Board against an ex-parte or ad-interim ex-parte order passed by the Trial Court or by the Appellate Court; and whether provisions of section 221 of the Act can be exercised by the Board in routine matters of revisions relating to interim orders along with section 230 of the Act or independently under section 221 of the Act?

Answer:- (a) No. A revision is not at all maintainable before the Board of Revenue under Section 230 of the Act against any ex-parte ad-interim order passed by the Trial Court or by the Appellate Court.

(b) The Board of Revenue has adequate powers of general superintendence under section 221 of the Act, but they are not a substitute of or a by-pass or shortcut of Section 230 of the Act. The powers under Section 221 can be sparingly exercised only in rare cases where a gross illegality in apparent disregard to a specific mandatory legal provision or in disobedience of the Superior Court has been committed by the lower court; and where a miscarriage of justice has taken place or the public interest has suffered."

11. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is

disposed of. The order impugned order dated 03.11.2025

(Annex.P/4) passed by the Board of Revenue is quashed and

set aside. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer is directed

to decide the pending Appeal No.60/2025 expeditiously,

(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 05:19:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52444] (10 of 10) [CW-22229/2025]

preferably within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of the

certified/web copy of this order. Until the decision of the

appeal, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in

respect to the way in dispute. Stay petition also stands

disposed of.