Kamlesh, S/O Kishan Lal vs Ram Sahai, S/O Sukha Ram

Avneesh Jhingan, J

This petition is filed challenging order of the Board of Revenue (for short 'Board') dated 11.01.2024 dismissing the revision petition and order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'SDO') vacating the interim order.

The brief facts are that the petitioner filed an application under Sections 131, 132 read with Section 136 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') with respect to correction of map of their land. The SDO vide order dated 07.07.2020 passed an interim order for maintaining status quo. The liberty was granted to the non-applicants to contest the interim order on the coming dates, if aggrieved. The interim order was contested and vacated vide order dated 11.01.2024. Aggrieved of vacation of the interim order, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Board. The revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2024 as non-maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board has erred in dismissing the revision petition on the ground that the remedy of appeal was available and revision is not maintainable. It is further argued that the stay was vacated by a non speaking order.

Section 84 and Section 84-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) are reproduced herebelow:-

“84. Power of Board to call for records and revise orders:- The Board may call for the record of any judicial nature or connected with settlement in which no appeal lies to the Board if the Court or officer by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or him by law, r to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, r to have acted in the exercise of its or his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, and may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit.”

84A. No revision in Certain cases: - No revision shall lie against an interim order passed in any proceedings under this Act and all pending revisions against such order shall abate on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Amendment Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance No.13 of 1975)].”

The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner lacks merit.

The language of Section 84A of the Act is unambiguous that no revision shall lie against an interim order passed in any proceedings under the Act. The conclusion arrived at by the Board is correct that the revision is not maintainable, though for different reasons that is no revision is maintainable against interim order.

The application filed by the petitioner was with regard to correction of map and the SDO without hearing the other party granted an ex parte interim protection and that too by non speaking order. None of the settled principle for granting the interim injunctions were discussed. On appearance of the defendants and after hearing both the parties, the interim protection granted was vacated.

Even before this Court no case is made out of irreparable loss, and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner for grant of the stay.

No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

However, the court concerned shall make an endeavor to conclude the suit expeditiously.