The High Court found the Board of Revenue's actions in allowing a revision petition without notice or delay condonation to be a gross abuse of legal process.
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjeet Purohit, has quashed an order by the Board of Revenue (BoR) due to procedural irregularities and a breach of judicial propriety. The case, titled "Virendra Singh v. Bhupendra Singh Ranawat," involved a writ petition challenging the BoR's handling of a revision petition.
The controversy centered around a decision dated April 20, 2026, where the BoR allowed a revision petition at the admission stage without issuing notice to the respondents or adjudicating the accompanying delay condonation application. This move effectively set aside an interim injunction order from October 17, 2025, and directed the trial court to implead a party not originally part of the proceedings.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Rajesh Parihar, argued that the BoR's actions were contrary to Sections 212 and 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, as well as the Limitation Act, 1963. The legal framework does not support revisions against interim orders, and the BoR's failure to address the delay condonation application violated established legal norms.
Counsel for the respondent, Advocate Vishwajeet Singh Ranawat, conceded that the revision petition should not have been allowed without due process. The High Court, after reviewing the case, found that the BoR had committed a grave error by bypassing essential legal procedures, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
In its judgment, the High Court emphasized that the BoR's order constituted a gross abuse of legal process, as it exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the impleadment of a non-party. Consequently, the court has remanded the matter back to the BoR for a fresh hearing, ensuring that all parties receive an opportunity to be heard.
Additionally, the High Court directed that the revision petition be assigned to a different bench upon remand, to avoid any potential bias from the original bench that passed the impugned order. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining procedural integrity and upholding the rule of law.
Bottom line:-
Revision petition decided at admission stage without issuing notice to respondents, without adjudicating application for condonation of delay, and exceeding jurisdiction by directing impleadment of a party not originally part of proceedings, amounts to a gross abuse of process of law.
Statutory provision(s):
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Section 212, Section 230; Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5
Virendra Singh v. Bhupendra Singh Ranawat, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc id # 2923694
