Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
N.T.P.C. Renewable Energy vs The Board Of Revenue … on 5 March, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:12400]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2888/2025
N.T.P.C. Renewable Energy, through its Legal Representative
Lalit Mehta S/o Late Shri Mahaveer S Mehta Aged About 65
Years having its registered office at NTPC Bhawan Scope
Complex-7 Institutional Area Lokhi Road New Delhi
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer
2. The Revenue, Appellate Authority Jodhpur
3. The Tehsildar, Bap, District Phalodi
4. Bhajnaram S/o Thaka Ram, R/o Umaniyao Ki Dhani Tehsil
Dhadhu Distrct Phalodi Rajasthan
5. Mohanram S/o Thakar Ram, R/o Umaniyon Ki Dhani Tehsil
Dhadhu District Phalodi Rajasthan
6. Bhawruram S/o Thakar Ram, R/o Umaniyon Ki Dhani
Tehsil Dhadhu District Phalodi Rajasthan
7. Somari W/o Ramniwas, R/o Umaniyon Ki Dhani Tehsil
Dhadhu District Phalodi Rajasthan
8. Kalidevi W/o Maipal, R/o Umaniyon Ki Dhani Tehsil
Dhadhu District Phalodi Rajasthan
9. Ramniwas S/o Baburam, R/o Umaniyon Ki Dhani Tehsil
Dhadhu District Phalodi Rajasthan
10. Taj Mohmad S/o Kayamdeen, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Dhani
Tehsil Bap, District Phalodi
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Udit Mathur
Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi
Ms. Divya Bapna
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG assisted by
Mr. Yogesh Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
JUDGMENT
Reportable
05/03/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12400] (2 of 14) [CW-2888/2025]
2. Briefly noted facts of the present writ petition are that the
petitioner was allotted land for establishment of a 500 Mega Watt
Solar Power Project in Tehsil Bap, Village Bhadla, by the District
Collector, Phalodi on 04.03.2024. However, the private respondent
filed a revenue suit under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy
Act before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Bap.
3. The learned Court of Assistant Collector, Bap, vide order
dated 25.11.2024, refused to grant ad-interim injunction in favour
of the private respondent. Aggrieved by the order dated
25.11.2024 the private respondent preferred an appeal before the
Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. On 26.11.2024, learned
Revenue Appellate Authority granted 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 before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, which
was dismissed on 20.12.2024 without addressing the factual
position or the submissions made by the petitioner. Hence, the
petitioner-company has preferred this writ petition to challenge
the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue,
Ajmer, dismissing the Revision Petition No.9011/2024 filed by the
petitioner under Section 230 read with Section 221 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned Board of Revenue has committed an error while rejecting
the revision petition filed by the petitioner. He submits that the
land has been allotted to the petitioner-company for establishing
the Solar Plant and, therefore, the private respondent had no
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12400] (3 of 14) [CW-2888/2025]
authority to assail the validity of the allotment order made in
favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the
Assistant Collector has rightly rejected the application filed by the
private respondent seeking interim injunction, however, the
learned Revenue Appellate Authority, without giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has passed ad-interim
order on 26.11.2024. Learned counsel submits that the Solar
Project of the petitioner is a time bound project and if the same is
not completed within the stipulated period, the petitioner will have
to suffer an irreparable loss. He submits that against the ad-
interim order granted by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority,
the petitioner has preferred a revision petition invoking the
provisions of Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955, however, the same has been rejected in a
cursory manner without appreciating the fact that if the order
passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority on 26.11.2024
is not interfered with then the project of the petitioner will be at
stake and the purpose for which the land has been allotted, shall
stand frustrated. Learned counsel submits that the revision
petition has wrongly been dismissed being not maintainable. He
therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the
order dated 20.12.2024 may be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the learned Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the
revision petition filed by the petitioner as the same is not
maintainable against ad-interim order passed by the Revenue
Appellate Authority. He submits that the stay application preferred
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12400] (4 of 14) [CW-2888/2025]
by the private respondents is still pending consideration and the
same has not been decided, therefore, the Board of Revenue has
rightly rejected the revision petition filed under Section 230 read
with Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Learned counsel
for the respondents submits that the revision petition is
maintainable only against the decision of the subordinate revenue
court in which no appeal lies either to the Board or to a Civil
Court. He further submits that as per Section 230 of the Act of
1955, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only when the
error is committed by the Subordinate Courts while exercising the
jurisdiction vested in it or the same has been exercised with
material irregularity. He therefore, prays that the writ petition may
be dismissed.
6. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have
gone through the relevant record of the case.
7. The undisputed facts of the present case show that the
petitioner was allotted the land by the State Government for
establishing the Solar Project vide allotment order dated
04.03.2024. The allotment of the land made in favour of the
petitioner was challenged by the private respondent by filing a suit
before the Assistant Collector, Bap. Alongwith the said suit, an
application seeking interim relief was also filed, however, after
hearing learned counsel for the respondent, the Assistant Collector
rejected the same vide order dated 25.11.2024. Against the order
dated 25.11.2024, the private respondent filed an appeal before
the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the learned Revenue
Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.11.2024 has passed an
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12400] (5 of 14) [CW-2888/2025]
ex-parte ad-interim injunction directing the petitioner to maintain
status quo with respect to the land in question. The order dated
26.11.2024 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority
was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Board of
Revenue by way of filing a revision petition and the same was
dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2024 on the ground that the
revision petition against ad-interim order is not maintainable.
8. The question in the present case is that whether a revision
petition under Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act filed against an ad-interim order passed by any
subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies either before
the Board or before the Civil Court is maintainable or not?
9. For better appreciation of the position of facts and law in the
present case, it will be fruitful to reproduce Section 221 as well as
Section 230 of the Act of 1955, which read thus:
“221. Subordination of revenue courts– The general
superintendence and control over all revenue courts shall
be vested in, and all such Courts shall be subordinate to
the Board; and subject to such superintendence, control
and subordination —
(a) Omitted.
(b) all Additional Collectors, Sub-Divisional Officers,
Assistant Collectors and Tehsildars in a district shall be
subordinate to the Collector thereof,
(c) all Assistant Collectors, Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars
in a subdivision shall be subordinate to the Sub-Divisional
Officer thereof, and
(d) all Additional Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars in a Tehsil
shall be subordinate to the Tehsildar thereof.
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12400] (6 of 14) [CW-2888/2025]
“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.”
10. A perusal of Section 221 shows 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.
11. So far as the revisional power of the Board of Revenue
provided under Section 230 of the Act is concerned, the same 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.
12. 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,
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12400] (7 of 14) [CW-2888/2025]
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.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ex-parte 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 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. Thus, the revision
against ex-parte ad-interim orders is rightly not maintainable
under Section 230 of the Act of 1955.
14. The Full Bench of the learned 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:
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12400] (8 of 14) [CW-2888/2025]
“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
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
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12400] (9 of 14) [CW-2888/2025]
(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 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(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12400] (10 of 14) [CW-2888/2025](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
Court but that itself does not form a ground for the Board to
exercise its revisional jurisdiction.
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12400] (11 of 14) [CW-2888/2025]
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.”
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12400] (12 of 14) [CW-2888/2025]
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.
(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
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12400] (13 of 14) [CW-2888/2025]
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.”
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.
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12400] (14 of 14) [CW-2888/2025]
17. All the pending applications, if any, as well as the stay
application also stand disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
72-/CP Goyal/-
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)