Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to Challenge Interim Orders" – Rajasthan High Court Dismisses NTPC's Petition

An Ad-Interim Injunction Is Not a 'Decided Case' – Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling on March 5, 2025, dismissed a writ petition filed by NTPC Renewable Energy, holding that revision under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, is not maintainable against an ad-interim injunction. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed: "A revision petition under Section 230 is maintainable only against a 'decided case.' An ad-interim order does not constitute a final decision, and therefore, it cannot be challenged in revision."

The decision arose from a dispute concerning the allotment of land in Tehsil Bap, Village Bhadla, for the establishment of a 500 MW solar power project. The land was allotted to NTPC Renewable Energy by the District Collector, Phalodi, on March 4, 2024. However, private respondents, local residents, challenged the allotment before the revenue courts, seeking an interim injunction to restrain NTPC from proceeding with the project.

"An Ad-Interim Order Is Temporary and Can Be Challenged Before the Same Forum"
Initially, the Assistant Collector, Bap, refused to grant the respondents interim relief on November 25, 2024. However, on appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, granted an ad-interim injunction on November 26, 2024, directing NTPC to maintain the status quo. NTPC then filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, seeking to set aside the injunction. The Board dismissed the revision on December 20, 2024, ruling that: "Revisional jurisdiction is not meant to correct mere factual or legal errors. It is limited to cases where a subordinate revenue court has committed a jurisdictional error or acted with material irregularity."
NTPC challenged this ruling before the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that the injunction would delay the completion of its time-sensitive solar project. The company contended that the order was issued ex-parte without giving them an opportunity to be heard and that it had suffered irreparable loss due to the stay on construction.
The High Court firmly rejected NTPC’s plea, stating: "An interim order is always temporary in nature and subject to modification upon hearing both parties. A revision petition cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal, nor can it be used to contest interlocutory orders."
The Court clarified that NTPC's proper remedy was to contest the injunction before the Revenue Appellate Authority itself rather than attempting to invoke revision jurisdiction.
"Revisional Jurisdiction Is Not Appellate Jurisdiction" – Supreme Court Precedents Upheld
The Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction, citing several landmark judgments, including:
DLF Housing and Construction Co. v. Swaroop Singh (1971), where the Supreme Court ruled that revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for mere factual or legal errors unless they pertain to jurisdictional issues.
Managing Director, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad (1973), which emphasized that a revisional court cannot interfere with an order simply because it disagrees with it.
Jagdish Prasad v. Bhopal Ram (2012), where the Full Bench of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue held that revision petitions against interim orders are not maintainable.
Justice Mathur emphasized: "The scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Unless there is a manifest jurisdictional error or material irregularity, the revisional court cannot interfere with interlocutory orders passed by lower revenue courts."
"Revenue Courts Must Not Entertain Revisions Against Temporary Injunctions"
The Court also observed that ex-parte ad-interim orders are generally passed at an early stage of proceedings and are subject to modification once both parties present their arguments. It noted that the Revenue Appellate Authority had not yet decided the stay application on merits, and NTPC could have argued its case before the same forum rather than attempting to seek revision before the Board of Revenue.
Reiterating the importance of procedural discipline, the Court stated: "If every interim injunction were to be challenged in revision, it would lead to unnecessary litigation delays. The correct approach is to contest such orders before the same forum that issued them, not to escalate them to higher courts prematurely."
"Writ Petition Dismissed – Revenue Appellate Authority Directed to Expedite Decision"
Dismissing NTPC's writ petition, the High Court upheld the Board of Revenue’s decision that revision against an ad-interim order is not maintainable. However, to ensure the dispute is resolved efficiently, the Court directed the Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the pending stay application within four weeks.
The ruling is expected to prevent misuse of revisional jurisdiction in revenue matters and set a clear precedent against unwarranted challenges to temporary orders. The Court cautioned: "Parties must not misuse revisional jurisdiction as a means to bypass the appropriate forum. The legislative intent behind Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act must be respected."

This decision reinforces the procedural discipline required in land disputes and ensures that renewable energy projects are not hindered by unnecessary legal battles.

Date of Decision: 05 March 2025