Rajasthan HC Quashes Board of Revenue Order Passed Without Notice, Calls It Gross Abuse of Process
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Board of Revenue order that allowed a revision petition at the admission stage without notice, without hearing, and without first deciding a pending delay-condonation application.
Justice Sanjeet Purohit, sitting as Vacation Judge at the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, on 4 June 2026 allowed a writ petition filed by Virendra Singh and quashed an order dated 20 April 2026 passed by the Board of Revenue. The Board had, at the admission stage of a revision petition, set aside an ad interim injunction granted by the Additional Collector, Jayal, and directed that court to implead a person who had never filed an impleadment application. The High Court found the order contrary to the basic tenets of natural justice, beyond the prayer made in the revision petition, and a gross abuse of process of law. The matter has been remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh consideration before a different bench.
The Suit, the Injunction, and the Revision
Virendra Singh, a resident of Dugoli in Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, filed a suit before the Additional Collector, Jayal, seeking declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction. Bhupendra Singh Ranawat — Respondent No. 1 — was not made a party to that suit. Along with the suit, Virendra Singh filed an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 seeking temporary injunction.
Although Bhupendra Singh Ranawat had filed a caveat in the proceedings before the Trial Court, he did not file any application seeking impleadment as a party to the suit or to the injunction proceedings.
On 17 October 2025, the Additional Collector, Jayal, granted ad interim relief in favour of Virendra Singh. The Trial Court directed all parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property — both its physical status and revenue records — and restrained the defendants from alienating, transferring, or selling the property during the pendency of proceedings.
Bhupendra Singh Ranawat then preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, being Revision Petition No. 3795/2026. Along with the revision petition, he also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision.
What the Board of Revenue Did
The Board of Revenue proceeded to decide the revision petition at the admission stage itself. It did so without issuing notice to the respondents in the revision, without granting any opportunity of hearing, and without first adjudicating the pending application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
By its order dated 20 April 2026, the Board allowed the revision petition, quashed the ad interim order dated 17 October 2025, and directed the Trial Court to implead Bhupendra Singh Ranawat as a party respondent. It further directed the Trial Court to decide afresh the application filed under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 within one month.
The petitioner came to know of these proceedings only after obtaining a certified copy of the revision petition proceedings. No notice had been served on him at any stage before the Board passed its order.
The High Court noted a particular internal contradiction in the Board's order: the Board itself observed that it was incumbent upon Bhupendra Singh Ranawat to first move an application for impleadment before the Trial Court, yet proceeded to issue operative directions ordering that very impleadment — contrary to its own findings.
Petitioner's Challenges Before the High Court
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Parihar, raised several grounds before the High Court.
The revision petition was decided ex parte, without notice to the opposite party and without any opportunity of hearing, in plain violation of natural justice. The application for condonation of delay was never decided before the revision itself was allowed, meaning the Board entertained a petition that was prima facie barred by limitation without first satisfying itself that the delay ought to be condoned.
The directions issued by the Board went beyond the prayer made in the revision petition. No application for impleadment had been filed before the Trial Court, yet the Board directed the Trial Court to carry out that impleadment. Counsel argued this amounted to the Board exceeding its jurisdiction.
On the question of maintainability, counsel contended that under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, a revision does not lie against an ad interim or interlocutory order. Reliance was placed on a judgment dated 15 March 2025 of the same court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2888/2025 (NTPC Renewable Energy v. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Others).
Respondent's Concession
Mr. Vishwajeet Singh Ranawat, appearing in caveat on behalf of Bhupendra Singh Ranawat, after arguing the matter for some time, fairly and candidly admitted that the revision petition could not have been allowed without issuing notice, without granting an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party, and without first deciding the application for condonation of delay.
Counsel for the caveator consented to the impugned order being quashed and the matter being remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
The High Court's Reasoning
Justice Purohit held that a grave error of law had been committed by the Board of Revenue. The court identified several compounding defects in the impugned order.
The revision petition was allowed at the admission stage without notice to the opposite party and without any hearing. The revision had been filed by a person who was not even a party to the proceedings before the Trial Court. The delay-condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act remained undecided when the Board proceeded to allow the revision on merits.
The court found it “quite astonishing” that the Board issued directions to the Trial Court to implead Bhupendra Singh Ranawat despite there being no impleadment application pending before the Trial Court. These directions went beyond the prayer made in the revision petition.
The High Court characterised the order as “a gross abuse of process of law” and held it to be absolutely erroneous, violative of judicial propriety, and contrary to settled principles of law and established procedure.
While the court refrained from making comments upon the modus operandi of the concerned Bench of the Board of Revenue, it considered it appropriate to direct that after remand, the revision petition be assigned to a bench other than the one that passed the impugned order. A copy of the High Court's order was directed to be sent to the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, to ensure this.
The High Court also made clear that the petitioner would be free to raise all objections before the Board of Revenue on remand, including the objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition itself. The Board was directed to consider and decide all such objections in accordance with law.
Order
The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 20 April 2026 passed by the Board of Revenue was quashed and set aside. Revision Petition No. 3795/2026 was remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with law, after granting due opportunity of hearing to all parties. The revision petition is to be placed before a bench other than the one that passed the impugned order, as directed by the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Ajmer.