Second Appellate Authority cannot adjudicate the merits of a case while setting aside an order of remand.

The Appellants (daughters of Late Jaluram) filed a revenue suit in 2009 for declaration, partition, and injunction, claiming a 2/3 share in ancestral property based on the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.

The Assistant Collector, Sikar, decreed the suit in favor of the Appellants on 04.09.2023.

On appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) set aside the decree on 31.01.2024 and remanded the matter back to the trial court to frame and decide an issue on limitation.

On 03.02.2026, the BOR set aside the RAA’s remand order and restored the trial court’s decree, effectively deciding the merits of the case.

The Single Judge set aside the BOR’s order and remanded the matter back to the RAA to decide the first appeal on its merits.

1. Whether an intra-court special appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the Board of Revenue.

2. Whether the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by restoring the trial court’s decree and bypassing the first appellate authority’s duty to adjudicate factual and legal issues on merits.

Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, regarding the Board of Revenue's appellate jurisdiction.

Kartar Singh v. Board of Revenue [RLW 2010 (2) RJ 853], establishing that intra-court appeals are maintainable against orders passed under Article 227 involving the Board of Revenue.

P.E. Prasanna Kumari v. T.K. Ambujakshi [Civil Appeal No. 4357/2024], which holds that if an appellate court finds a remand order improper, the logical course is to direct the first appellate court to decide the appeal on merits rather than restoring the trial court decree and depriving parties of the statutory remedy of a first appeal.

The Division Bench observed that while the Board of Revenue has wide powers under Section 224 to interfere with erroneous orders, it cannot bypass the statutory hierarchy.

The BOR erred by choosing to restore the trial court's decree itself, which effectively deprived the Respondent of her right to have the first appellate court re-appreciate the evidence.

The Court reasoned that the Single Judge correctly applied the law by remanding the matter to the RAA, ensuring that the hierarchy of appellate forums is maintained and that the first appeal—which is a continuation of the suit—is heard on its merits.

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision, ruling that the Board of Revenue should not have restored the trial court's decree when the first appellate authority had not yet determined the case on merits.

The Special Appeal was dismissed, confirming the remand to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar, to decide the appeal expeditiously within four months from the date of the Single Judge's order.