Writ jurisdiction ordinarily cannot be invoked against remand orders absent patent jurisdictional error or manifest injustice.

The petitioner, appointed as Village Servant/Kotwar of Village Kajrai on 9 April 1990, claimed that service land comprising Khasra Nos. 70/2 and 166/1 had been allotted to him under Section 183 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (“the Code”), and recorded in his name as Bhoomiswami.

The Tahsildar subsequently allotted the land to Respondents Nos. 1–6 by order dated 20 June 2002.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, in appeal under Section 44(1)(a), set aside that allotment on 2 April 2016, holding that the land was Kotwar service land and that the respondents were not eligible landless persons.

The respondents’ revision before the Additional Commissioner was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 11 November 2016, as the SDO’s order was appealable under Section 44(2)(i).

The respondents thereafter approached the Board of Revenue under Section 50.

By order dated 12 January 2018, the Board partly allowed the revision, set aside the SDO’s order, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

The petitioner challenged that revisional order under Article 226, contending that the Board lacked jurisdiction and that the remand was legally unnecessary.

The respondents defended the Board’s jurisdiction and argued that the writ petition was premature because the impugned order was only an order of remand.

Whether the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Code to entertain and decide the respondents’ revision against the SDO’s appellate order, notwithstanding the petitioner’s contention that a statutory second appeal was available under Section 44(2)(i).

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against the Board of Revenue’s interlocutory order remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.

Whether the Board’s remand order was legally unsustainable because the SDO’s finding that the land was Kotwar service land had not been disturbed.

The Court applied Sections 44(1)(a) and 44(2)(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, concerning appeals against revenue orders, Section 50 concerning the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue, and Section 183 concerning service land allotted to village servants.

Relying on Fulla v. Narendra Singh and Others, 2012 RN 256, the Court held that the Board of Revenue possesses revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 in appropriate cases and that the revision cannot be treated as wholly without jurisdiction on the ground urged by the petitioner.

The Court further relied on Anant Singh and Another v. Govind and Others, 1999 RN 99, for the principle that a writ petition ordinarily should not be entertained against an order of remand, since such an order does not finally determine the parties’ rights and interference is warranted only where there is patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest failure of justice.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s jurisdictional challenge because the Division Bench decision in Fulla recognized the Board of Revenue’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 in appropriate circumstances.

It also held that the challenged order was merely a remand order and did not finally adjudicate the parties’ rights; both sides remained entitled to present their factual and legal contentions before the SDO.

Applying the principle in Anant Singh, the Court found no patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest failure of justice justifying extraordinary interference under Article 226.

Although the petitioner argued that the remand was redundant because the SDO had found the land to be service land, the Court declined to interfere at that stage and left the issue open for determination in the remand proceedings.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the Board’s order dated 12 January 2018 remanding the matter to the SDO for fresh adjudication was not disturbed.