[2025:RJ-JP:39792] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14085/2025 1. Sanjay Kumar S/o Jaswant Singh, R/o Kakdeu Khurd, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu. 2. Rajendra S/o Asharam, R/o Kakdeu Khurd, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu. 3. Ramchandra S/o Juhararam, R/o Kakdeu Khurd, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu. 4. Devendra S/o Birbal Singh, R/o Kakdeu Khurd, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Ishwar Singh S/o Norang, R/o Kakdeu Khurd, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu. 2. Rameshwar S/o Motiram, 3. Dheersingh S/o Jaswant Singh, 4. Manbhari Devi W/o Jaswant Singh, 5. Prahlad S/o Rameshwar, 6. Bajrang S/o Rameshwar, 7. Mahaveer S/o Rameshwar, 8. Mohanlal S/o Rameshwar, 9. Devkaran S/o Asharam, 10. Banwarilal S/o Asharam, All R/o Kakdeu Khurd, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu. 11. Indra D/o Asharam W/o Hoshiyar Singh, R/o Chandu Ka Bas, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. 12. Kamla D/o Badri, 13. Dayanand S/o Badri, 14. Mahendra S/o Badri, 15. Mahesh S/o Badri, 16. Vidhyadhar S/o Juhararam, 17. Vinod S/o Badri, 18. Virendra S/o Badri, All R/o Kakdeu Khurd, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu. 19. Pyarelal S/o Shanti Devi, 20. Tarachand S/o Shanti Devi, 21. Savitri D/o Shanti Devi, All R/o Sura Ka Bas, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. 22. Sumitra D/o Badri, 23. Surendra S/o Badri, 24. Sangari W/o Badri, 25. Yogendra S/o Birbal Singh, [2025:RJ-JP:39792] (2 of 4) [CW-14085/2025] 26. Vijendra S/o Birbal Singh, 27. Satyendra S/o Birbal Singh, 28. Shakuntala W/o Birbal Singh, All R/o Kakdeu Khurd, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu. 29. Bank of Baroda, Alsisar, through Branch Manager. 30. Punjab National Bank Branch, Jhunjhunu through Branch Manager. 31. State of Rajasthan, through Tehsildar Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Intjar Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankush Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/09/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 14.08.2025, passed in revision No.TA/7099/2025/Jhunjhunu titled as Ishwar Singh Vs. Rameshwar & Ors., whereby the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, has set aside the interim stay order dated 30.07.2025 and also issued certain directions. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, submits that the Board of Revenue erred in entertaining the revision against an interim order, and that the learned Appellate Court had merely passed an interim stay order for maintaining the status quo in respect of possession and record of the land in dispute till the next date of hearing. Counsel further states that the order dated 30.07.2025 was merely an interim order and does not fall within the purview of 'case decided'. Thus, [2025:RJ-JP:39792] (3 of 4) [CW-14085/2025] it was not proper for the learned Board of Revenue to entertain the revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited the attention of this Court towards Para 9 & 10 of the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, which reads as under:- "9- ,slh fLFkfr esa foi{khx.k ls tckc izkFkZuk i= ysdj mHk; i{k dks lqudj izdj.k dk vfUre :i ls fuLrkj.k djus gsrq vihyh; U;k;ky; dks funsZf'kr djuk U;k;ksfpr gksxkA fof/kuqlkj varfje vkns'k ds fo:) izLrqr fuxjkuh bl Lrj ij iks"k.kh; ugha ekuh tk ldrh gSA vr% gLrxr fuxjkuh varfje vkns'k ds fo:) izLrqr gksus ls [kkfjt ;ksX; ik;h tkrh gSA 10 अतः उपरोक्त वि ेचनानुसार प्रार्थी की विनगरानी ग्राह्यता के स्तर पर अंतरिरम आदेश के वि रुद्ध होने से पोषणीयता ए ं वि वि'नुरूप नहीं होने से खारिरज की जाती है। 4. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, passed by the learned Board of Revenue, may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the limited direction passed by the learned Board of Revenue, no interference is required by this Court under the writ jurisdiction. 6. Heard and perused the material available on record. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the order which is sought to be challenged before the learned Board of Revenue, i.e., 30.07.2025, was mainly an ad interim order, and it is well settled that against an interim order, which does not fall within the purview of 'case decided', a revision petition is not maintainable before the learned Board of Revenue. 8. It is also quite surprising that the Revisional Authority, despite observing in Para No.9 & 10 of the impugned order that revision is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed, yet [2025:RJ-JP:39792] (4 of 4) [CW-14085/2025] proceeded to set aside the interim stay order and issued certain directions. 9. Since the revision petition itself was not maintainable, therefore the impugned order passed in such a revision petition is considered to be without jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner deserves acceptance that the revision under Section 230 of the Act lies only against the final order and not against an interim order. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby quashed and set aside 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority is directed to decide the pending appeal as well as stay application within a period of one month from the filing of the certified copy of this order. 12. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /204