In a case pertaining to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the Rajasthan High Court has explained that an ad-interim order cannot come in the category of “decided case” and a revision petition is not maintainable under Sections 230 and 221 against such orders passed by the subordinate revenue courts and the appellate courts.

The petitioner company approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 230 read with Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur said, “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.”

Advocate Udit Mathur represented the Petitioner while AAG S.S. Ladrecha represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The petitioner was allotted land for the establishment of a 500 Megawatt Solar Power Project by the District Collector, Phalodi. However, the private respondent filed a revenue suit under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and the Court of Assistant Collector refused to grant aan d-interim injunction in favour of the private respondent. Aggrieved by the order, the private respondent preferred an appeal, and the Revenue Appellate Authority granted an 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 which was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner-Company approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench made a reference to Section 221 and observed that the power of general superintendence and control over all the revenue courts shall be vested in the Board of Revenue and, therefore, while exercising powers under Section 221, the Board of Revenue is competent to exercise the power of superintendence, control and subordination of the revenue courts. “Therefore, there is no quarrel on the point that the Board of Revenue is having power of superintendence and control over all the revenue courts of the State”, the Bench said.

The Bench further explained that the revisional power of the Board of Revenue provided under Section 230 can be exercised in any case “decided” by any subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies either to the Board or to a civil court and secondly, the power of revision can be exercised on the ground of "jurisdiction" if not properly exercised or exercised with material irregularity. “Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the law mandates the maintainability of the revision petition only in a “decided” case by the subordinate revenue court where no appeal lies and secondly, on the ground of jurisdictional error committed by the lower revenue courts. Further, merely passing of an ad-interim order cannot be said to be a decision on the interim application filed and therefore, the same cannot be treated to come in the category of “a decided case” as per Section 230 of the Act of 1955”, the Bench said.

The Court further observed that the ex-parte adinterim 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 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. “Thus, the revision against ex-parte ad-interim orders is rightly not maintainable under Section 230 of the Act of 1955”, it added.

Thus, dismissing the Writ Petition, the Bench directed the Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the appeal expeditiously and if the same is not decided, then application for interim injunction be decided preferably within four weeks.

Cause Title: N.T.P.C. Renewable Energy v. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:12400)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Udit Mathur, Harshvardhan Thanvi, Divya Bapna

Respondent: AAG S.S. Ladrecha, Advocate Yogesh Sharma

Click here to read/download Order









Rajasthan High CourtJustice Vinit Kumar Mathur

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.