A challenge confined to an interlocutory order becomes infructuous once the final order is passed.

Respondent No. 6 initiated proceedings under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code, claiming that the petitioner had encroached on her land and seeking his eviction. The petitioner objected that the land was Government residential land and that Section 250 did not apply; he also sought an opportunity to lead evidence.

The Tahsildar closed that opportunity on 8 May 2017 and subsequently ordered eviction on 26 May 2017. The Collector, Commissioner and Board of Revenue declined to grant relief against the order closing evidence.

In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged that interlocutory order; the State submitted that the proceedings had since culminated in the final eviction order, while the petitioner’s counsel said he could not confirm whether it had been passed.

Whether effective relief could be granted in a writ petition confined to the Tahsildar’s interlocutory order closing the petitioner’s opportunity to lead evidence, after the proceedings had culminated in a final eviction order.

Whether the petitioner could be permitted to challenge the final eviction order before the appropriate forum.

Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code was the provision under which the eviction proceedings were initiated.

The Court applied the procedural principle that, where proceedings have culminated in a final order, a challenge confined to an interlocutory order may not yield effective relief; a person aggrieved by the final order may challenge it before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s challenge concerned only the order dated 8 May 2017 closing his opportunity to lead evidence, and that the subordinate authorities had affirmed that order. It also took account of the State’s submission that the Tahsildar had passed a final eviction order on 26 May 2017.

Because the proceedings had therefore culminated in a final order, the Court concluded that no effective relief could be granted in the petition as framed. It did not decide the merits of the eviction order or the petitioner’s underlying objections.

It preserved the petitioner’s liberty to challenge the final eviction order before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.