Dismissal Of Revenue Suit While Quashing Remand Order Deprives Plaintiff Of Remedy Of Appeal: Rajasthan High Court
While setting aside the order of Revenue Board, Rajasthan High Court held that if an appeal was filed against an order of remand, and the higher court was satisfied that the order was not just/proper, the matter could be remanded to the first appellate court for deciding afresh, but the plaintiff's revenue suit could not be rejected. The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if such...
While setting aside the order of Revenue Board, Rajasthan High Court held that if an appeal was filed against an order of remand, and the higher court was satisfied that the order was not just/proper, the matter could be remanded to the first appellate court for deciding afresh, but the plaintiff's revenue suit could not be rejected.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if such orders dismissing suits were allowed, the appellant would be deprived of the right to avail remedy of first appeal.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in P.E. Prasannakumari & Others Vs. T.K. Ambujakshi (Dead) through LRs., that dealt with an identical situation, and said:
"The Hon'ble Apex Court was clear on the issue that against an order of remand, if any appeal is preferred and if the higher Court is satisfied that the order of remand is not just and proper, then the matter could be remanded to the first appellate court for deciding the appeal on its merits, but the suit submitted by the plaintiff cannot be rejected. In case such practice is allowed, then the appellant would be deprived from availing the remedy of first appeal.
In the instant case also, the aforesaid analogy is applicable".
For context, a revenue suit for correction of entries and declaration of khatedari (tenancy) rights was filed by the petitioner against the respondents before the Court of Assistant Collector and the same was decreed. Against this, 2 appeals were filed by two separate set of respondents before the Revenue Appellate Authority (“RAA”).
A joint order was passed by the RAA in which the first set of appeal was allowed, and the second set of appeal was partially allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector for deciding it afresh. Against the order in the second set of appeal, the concerned respondents filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue.
The Board not only set aside the order of the RAA, but also rejected the suit filed by the petitioner. Hence, this order was challenged before the Court.
In this background, the Court held,
“…if the Board was of the view that the order passed by the RAA was not legally sustainable in the eyes of law, then the matter could have been remanded to the RAA with clear and specific directions to decide the appeal on its merits by quashing the order of remand, but in the instant case, the Board has gone one step ahead and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff as well. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to avail the remedy of first appeal.”
Accordingly, the order passed by the Board was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the RAA for deciding it afresh, preferably within 2 months, without entertaining any unnecessary requests from either side.
Title: Gopali Devi v Gyarsi Lal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 370