Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Alisher Khan vs Batul Bano on 7 August, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JP:37750]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17013/2026
CNR: RJHC010735322026 | URN: CW / 29764U / 2026
1. Alisher Khan S/o Ahmad Khan, Aged About 56 Years,
Resident Of Gali No.06, Near Old Power House Kayam
Nagar, Didwana, Tehsil- Didwana, District- Didwana-
Kuchaman Rajasthan.
2. Nabi Sher S/o Ahmad Khan, Aged About 54 Years, Resident
Of Near Old Power House Kayam Nagar, Salt Road,
Didwana, Tehsil- Didwana, District- Didwana- Kuchaman
Rajasthan.
3. Mehabub Bano W/o Ahmad Kahn, Aged About 76 Years,
Resident Of Near Old Power House Kayam Nagar, Salt Road,
Didwana, Tehsil- Didwana, District- Didwana- Kuchaman
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Batul Bano W/o Ummed Khan, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of
Old Power House Didwana, Tehsil- Didwana, District- Didwana-
Kuchaman Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajak Khan Haidar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manohar Singh Rathore.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
07/08/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the
following prayers:
“(i) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated
10.07.2026 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned Board
of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer in Revision Petition
No. 7435 of 2026 (Batul Bano Vs Rasid Khan & Ors.)
under Sections 230 read with Section 221 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955; and/or(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:37750] (2 of 14) [CW-17013/2026]
(ii) Restore the order dated 11.06.2026 (Annexure-5)
passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority,
Nagaur at Nagaur in Appeal No. 129 of 2026 (Batul
Bano Vs Nazeer Khan & Ors.) under section 223 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955; and/or
(iii) Direct the learned Revenue Appellate Authority,
Nagaur to decide the stay application strictly in
accordance with law after calling for and examining the
original record and after affording due opportunity of
hearing to all concerned parties, expeditiously and
independently without being influenced by any
observations made by the learned Board of Revenue in
the impugned order dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure-6);
and/or
(iv) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction
which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the controversy pertains to
Revenue Suit No. 80/2007 (Nazeer Khan & Ors. Vs Basheer Khan
& Ors.) under Sections 53 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,
1955 before the learned Assistant Collector-cum-Sub Divisional
Officer, Didwana, relating to the disputed ancestral Khatedari land
bearing Khasra Nos. 679 and 688 situated at Mandabasni
(Didwana), wherein upon conclusion of the proceedings, the
learned Trial Court passed the judgment and decree dated
05.05.2026 (Annex.1). Being aggrieved, the private respondent
preferred Appeal No. 129 of 2026 (Batul Bano Vs Nazeer Khan &
Ors.) (Annex.2) under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,
1955, before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur
along with an application seeking an interim stay on 08.06.2026
(part of Annex.3). On 10.06.2026 (part of Annex.3), the learned
Revenue Appellate Authority deemed it appropriate that before
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:37750] (3 of 14) [CW-17013/2026]
passing any order upon the stay application, the record of the
subordinate Court deserved to be called for and all the non-
applicants deserved to be heard; however, during the pendency of
the stay application, the appellant therein preferred an application
under Section 151 CPC on 11.06.2026 (Annex.4) seeking
immediate disposal of the stay application, which was declined on
the same day by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide its
order dated 11.06.2026 (Annex.5) while observing that without
hearing the affected parties and examining the original record,
passing an interim order affecting valuable rights would be
inappropriate. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority neither
rejected the stay application nor refused jurisdiction, leaving the
stay application pending consideration; nevertheless, being
dissatisfied with the order dated 11.06.2026, the appellant
preferred Revision Petition No. 7435 of 2026 (Batul Bano Vs Rasid
Khan & Ors.) before the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan,
Ajmer under Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955, which allowed the Revision Petition vide
impugned order dated 10.07.2026 (Annex.6), setting aside the
order dated 11.06.2026 and granting an order of status quo over
the disputed land till disposal of the stay application. The
impugned order dated 10.07.2026 is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary,
without jurisdiction, and suffers from patent errors apparent on
the face of the record, inasmuch as the learned Board of Revenue
exercised appellate jurisdiction under the guise of revisional
powers. Hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have preferred a Revenue Suit before the Assistant
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:37750] (4 of 14) [CW-17013/2026]
Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Didwana, which was allowed
vide order dated 05.05.2026 (Annex.1), against which, the
respondent preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate
Authority along with an application for interim stay. He submits
that the Revenue Appellate Authority made an observation that
the record of the subordinate court would be required while also
giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and the application
was kept pending without passing any interim order. He submits
that whereafter, the appellant (respondent herein) filed another
application under Section 151 CPC seeking immediate disposal of
the interim stay application, however, the said application came to
be rejected vide order dated 11.06.2026 (Annex.5) while
observing that without hearing the effective parties and without
examining the record, it would not be appropriate to grant interim
order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that being
aggrieved of the order dated 11.06.2026 (Annex.5), the
respondent filed a revision under Sections 230 read with Section
221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Board of
Revenue. He submits that the Board of Revenue vide impugned
order dated 10.07.2026 (Annex.6), quashed the order dated
11.06.2026 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority while
directing the parties to maintain status quo over the land till
disposal of the stay application pending before the Revenue
Appellate Authority.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in
view of Section 230-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, no
revision is maintainable against the order dated 11.06.2026
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:37750] (5 of 14) [CW-17013/2026]
(Annex.5), therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon
judgment rendered in the case of NTPC Renewable Energy Vs.
The Board of Revenue & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.2888/2025, decided on 05.03.2025.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the Board of Revenue in the interest of justice while protecting the
rights of the parties has granted interim order for maintaining
status quo, therefore, no interference is called for in the order
impugned and therefore the present petition deserves to be
dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
respondent places reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court rendered in Surendra Pal Singh Vs. Board of Revenue
for Rajasthan.: LAWS(SC)-1993-5-20, (Civil Appeal
No.1367/1980), decided on 13.05.1993.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
material available on record.
9. The principle question which falls for consideration is whether
a revision petition under Section 230 and 221 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955, is maintainable against an interlocutory order
passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority refusing to grant
immediate interim relief and deferring the consideration of the
stay application until receipt of the record of the lower court.
There is no manner of doubt that that by virtue of the Gazette
Notification dated 12.08.2013, Section 230-A was inserted in the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Since the provision has a direct
bearing on the controversy involved, it is reproduced hereunder:-
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:37750] (6 of 14) [CW-17013/2026]“230-A. No revision in certain cases.-
No revision shall lie against an interim order passed in any
proceeding under this Act and all pending revisions against
such orders shall abate on the date of commencement of the
Rajasthan Tenancy (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2013
(Ordinance No.19 of 2013).”
10. The language of the said provision is plain, explicit and
projects no ambiguity, it creates an absolute statutory bar against
the maintainability of a revision petition challenging an interim
order passed in any proceeding under the Act. Once the
legislature has consciously excluded the revisional remedy against
interlocutory orders, the revisional authority cannot assume
jurisdiction contrary to the legislative mandate. It is a settled
principle that where a statute expressly bars a particular remedy,
the Court cannot circumvent such prohibition by resorting to an
expansive interpretation of its revisional powers.
11. Further, it is also important to note that 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 being apposite, are
reproduced hereunder:
“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.
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:37750] (7 of 14) [CW-17013/2026]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
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.
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:37750] (8 of 14) [CW-17013/2026]
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 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(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:37750] (9 of 14) [CW-17013/2026](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
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:37750] (10 of 14) [CW-17013/2026]
Court 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,
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
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:37750] (11 of 14) [CW-17013/2026]
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.
(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. xxx xxx xxx
Question no 1:- xxx xxx xxx
Answer:- xxx xxx xxx
Question no 2:- xxx xxx xxx
Answer:- xxx xxx xxx
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
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:37750] (12 of 14) [CW-17013/2026]
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.”
15. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the
considered view that the revision petition is not maintainable
under Section 230 and 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act
against ad-interim orders passed by the subordinate revenue
courts and the appellate courts and the revision petition is
maintainable only against the decision of the suits as well as
the interim applications decided by the revenue courts and
appellate courts.
16. Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of any
force and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the learned
Revenue Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal
expeditiously and if the same is not decided, then at least the
application for interim injunction shall be decided at the
earliest preferably within a period of four weeks strictly in
accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing
to all the parties from the date of receipt a certified copy of
the order instant.”
12. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case in
NTPC Renewable Energy (supra), has dealt with the similar issue
and held that revision petition is not maintainable under Section
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:37750] (13 of 14) [CW-17013/2026]
230 and 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against ad-interim
orders passed by the Subordinate revenue courts and the
appellate courts and the revision petition is maintainable only
against the decision of the suits as well as the interim applications
decided by the revenue courts and appellate courts.
13. So far as the judgment in Surendra Pal Singh Vs. Board
of Revenue for Rajasthan [LAWS(SC)-1993-5-20 / Civil Appeal
No. 1367/1980, decided on 13.05.1993], relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondent, is concerned, the same is
completely distinguishable on facts and holds no application to the
instant case.
14. Further, in the present case, vide order dated 11.06.2026
(Annex.5), the Revenue Appellate Authority merely declined to
grant immediately interim protection and postponed consideration
of the stay application until receipt of the record of the lower court
and after hearing the parties. The stay application itself continues
to remain pending before the Revenue Appellate Authority and has
yet not finally adjudicated. Such an order is purely interlocutory in
nature and does not determine any substantive right of the
parties. In these circumstances, the revision petition before the
Board of Revenue was clearly barred by Section 230-A of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Consequently, by entertaining a
revision against an interlocutory order and issuing directions
affecting the rights of the parties, Board of Revenue not only acted
contrary to Section 230-A but also prematurily interfered with the
proceedings which were lawfully pending before the Revenue
Appellate Authority. The competent Revenue Appellate Authority
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:37750] (14 of 14) [CW-17013/2026]
has yet to adjudicate the application for interim relief on its own
merits after examining the record and hearing the parties.
15. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
impugned order dated 10.07.2026 (Annex.6) passed by the Board
of Revenue, Ajmer, is without jurisdiction and in clear
contravention of the statutory embargo contained in Section 230-
A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the same is therefore liable
to set aside.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
The order dated 10.07.2026 (Annex.6) passed by the Board of
Revenue, Ajmer, is quashed and set aside.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
1/Sumit Sharma
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 07:24:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 09:03:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
