[2025:RJ-JP:26497] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9602/2014 Hari Mohan S/o Shri Jagdish, aged about 58 years, R/o Kasba Nadbai, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.). ----Plaintiff-Petitioner Versus Nadbai Kray-Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited, Nadbai, District Bharatpur through its Manager, Udairai Pohiya S/o Shri Bhagirath Prasad Pohiya. ----Defendant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Gaurav Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr.M. M. Ranjan, Sr.Adv. Assisted by Ms.Aayush Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/07/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”) by which the review application submitted by the respondent under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act of 1955”) has been allowed and the judgment dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Board has been reviewed and the same has been modified. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for declaration, injunction and possession submitted by the petitioner was partly decreed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nadbai vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2004 and the respondent was restrained to not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and the Tehsildar was directed to inspect the site and make [2025:RJ-JP:26497] (2 of 4) [CW-9602/2014] necessary corrections in the record with regard to the land bearing Khasra Nos.737 and 740. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, “the RAA”) and the same was partly allowed vide judgment dated 15.12.2005 and the matter was remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer with directions to record the evidence of the Tehsildar. 3. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner submitted second appeal before the Board and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 11.12.2009 and the judgment passed by the RAA was quashed and set-aside and the judgment passed by the Sub-divisional Officer was upheld. 4. Counsel submits that subsequently, a revision petition was submitted by the respondent before the Board and now, the Board has reviewed its judgment dated 11.12.2009 and the judgment passed by the trial Court has been amended to the extent that the defendant Kray-Vikray Sahkari Samiti, Nadbai is restrained by the decree of perpetual injunction to not to interfere in cultivatory possession of the plaintiff in Khasra No.1289 of Village Nadbai and rest part of the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer has been quashed and set-aside. Counsel submits that under the review jurisdiction, only clerical/ arithmetic error can be rectified, but the judgment cannot be modified. If at all the respondent was aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.12.2009, he could have avail the remedies available under the law, in stead of filing the revision petition, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. [2025:RJ-JP:26497] (3 of 4) [CW-9602/2014] 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that glaring error has occurred in the judgment dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Board, that is why, the review petition was submitted and the same was rightly allowed by the Board and the judgment dated 11.12.2009 was rightly modified, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant writ petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking various prayers including declaration, permanent injunction and possession was rightly decreed by the Sub- Divisional Officer vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2004 and no decree was issued in favour of the plaintiff with regard to removal of encroachment of the defendant and their possession for the subject land, the defendant-respondent was restrained to not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and further certain directions were issued for making necessary corrections in the record. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the RAA, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 15.12.2005 and the matter was remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer for deciding the suit afresh, after recording the statement of the Tehsildar/ Patwari. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board and the Board has allowed the appeal and the judgment passed by the RAA has been quashed and set-aside [2025:RJ-JP:26497] (4 of 4) [CW-9602/2014] and the judgment passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer has been upheld. 10. If at all the respondent was aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment passed by the Board, he could have avail the remedies available to him under the law in stead of filing a revision petition. A revision petition can be filed if there is a clerical/ arithmetic error or when certain facts which not have been brought into the notice of the Court, hence, the scope is limited under the review jurisdiction, the Court cannot rewrite its own judgment and take a contrary view to the view already taken, but in the instant case, the Board has exceeded its review jurisdiction. The order impugned has been passed which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside. The instant writ petition stands allowed. However, the respondent would be at liberty to avail the remedies available under the law, in case, he feels aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.12.2009. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /59