Rajasthan High Court quashes Board of Revenue order, terms ex parte revision ‘gross abuse of process’

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an order of the Board of Revenue that allowed a revision petition at the admission stage without issuing notice to the opposite party, without granting any opportunity of hearing, and without first adjudicating a pending application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, holding that the manner in which the order was passed amounts to a “gross abuse of process of law.”

Justice Sanjeet Purohit, sitting as Vacation Judge, observed that the Board had also gone beyond the prayer in the revision petition by directing the Trial Court to implead a party respondent despite no application for impleadment being pending before it — a course of action the Court found “quite astonishing”, particularly since the Board had in its own findings noted that it was incumbent on the revisionist to first move such an application before the Trial Court.

“This Court is of considered opinion that a grave error of law has been committed by learned Board of Revenue while passing impugned order. The manner in which impugned order has been passed, whereby revision petition has been allowed at the admission stage and an order is set aside without issuing notice to opposite / affected party, without granting any opportunity of hearing that too, in a revision petition filed by a person who is not a party to proceedings and without first deciding application for condonation of delay, is against settled and basic tenates of law.”

The matter arose from a suit filed by petitioner Virendra Singh before the Additional Collector, Jayal, seeking declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Respondent No. 1, Bhupendra Singh Ranawat, was not a party to the suit, though he had filed a caveat. No application seeking impleadment as a party respondent was filed on his behalf before the Trial Court at any stage.

On 17.10.2025, the Additional Collector passed an ad interim order directing all parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property — both in terms of its physical status and revenue records — and restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring, or selling the property during the pendency of proceedings.

Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed Revision Petition No. 3795/2026 before the Board of Revenue, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision. The Board, however, without issuing notice to the respondents, without providing any opportunity of hearing, and without first adjudicating the condonation application, proceeded to allow the revision at the admission stage itself. By the impugned order dated 20.04.2026, the Board set aside the ad interim order dated 17.10.2025 and directed the Trial Court to implead Respondent No. 1 as a party respondent and to decide afresh the application for temporary injunction filed under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 within a period of one month.

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Parihar, challenged the impugned order on several grounds. He submitted that under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, a revision petition does not lie against an ad interim or interlocutory order, placing reliance on a judgment dated 15.03.2025 of this Court in NTPC Renewable Energy vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2888/2025). He further contended that the Board had committed an additional error by issuing directions for impleadment despite no impleadment application being pending before the Trial Court — and that the Board had in fact contradicted its own findings, having itself noted that it was for Respondent No. 1 to first file such an application, before nonetheless issuing a contrary operative direction. The entire proceeding, he argued, was ex facie barred by limitation and amounted to a gross abuse of process of law.

Notably, Mr. Vishwajeet Singh Ranawat, appearing in caveat on behalf of Respondent No. 1, after arguing the matter for some time, fairly and candidly admitted that the revision petition could not have been decided without issuing notice, without granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite party, and without first deciding the condonation of delay application. He consented to the impugned order being quashed and the matter being remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

The High Court agreed, finding that the Board had committed a grave error of law on multiple counts. It was also “quite astonishing”, the Court observed, that the operative portion of the impugned order had been passed “beyond the prayer made in revision petition”, with straightforward directions issued for impleadment despite there being no such application pending before the Trial Court. The Court further held:

“This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is absolutely erroneous and also violative of judicial propriety. The manner in which it has been passed renders it contrary to settled principles of law and established procedure, and the same is therefore unsustainable in the eyes of law.”

The writ petition was accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 20.04.2026 was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Board of Revenue for deciding Revision Petition No. 3795/2026 strictly in accordance with law after granting due opportunity of hearing to all parties. The petitioner was also expressly given liberty to raise all objections on remand, including on the maintainability of the revision petition.

Further, having regard to the manner in which the impugned order was passed — while refraining from making any specific comments on the modus operandi of the concerned Bench — the Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, to ensure that on remand, Revision Petition No. 3795/2026 be assigned to and placed before a Bench other than the one that had passed the impugned order.

Title: Virendra Singh v. Bhupendra Singh Ranawat & Others

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12307/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:26902]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Parihar

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Vishwajeet Singh Ranawat (Caveator, Respondent No. 1)