The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that possession of land cannot be lawfully disturbed while a revision petition remains pending before the Board of Revenue, establishing a clear procedural safeguard for long-term occupants facing administrative dispossession.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Samundra Kumar, has been in continuous possession of agricultural land in Village Tawriwala, Jaisalmer, for over a decade. The respondent authorities initiated proceedings to dispossess him based on an order passed by the Additional Commissioner-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, which questioned the legality of his possession. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, along with a prayer for stay of dispossession.
Procedural History
- 2024: Revenue authorities initiated proceedings to dispossess the petitioner
- 2025: Additional Commissioner-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority passed an order favoring dispossession
- Late 2025: Petitioner filed revision petition and stay application before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer
- January 2026: Despite pendency of revision and stay, respondent authorities moved to execute dispossession
- 27 January 2026: Petitioner filed writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court seeking injunction against dispossession
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought an immediate stay against dispossession and a direction to the Board of Revenue to decide the pending revision and stay application expeditiously.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the mere pendency of a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, coupled with a pending stay application, creates a legal obligation to maintain the status quo of possession until final adjudication.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner relied on the principle of audi alteram partem and the doctrine of equitable possession, arguing that dispossession during pendency of a statutory remedy violates the petitioner’s right to effective remedy under Article 21. He cited State of U.P. v. Rameshwar Prasad to emphasize that administrative action cannot override pending appellate remedies.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the petitioner’s possession was not legally established under revenue records and that the authorities were merely enforcing a lawful order. It argued that the pendency of revision does not automatically grant immunity from execution, especially where possession is alleged to be unlawful.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of revision petitions under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the procedural safeguards inherent in administrative appellate systems. It held that the Board of Revenue, as the statutory appellate authority, is vested with the power to stay execution of lower orders. The Court observed that allowing dispossession while the revision is pending would render the appellate remedy illusory.
"The right to be heard includes the right to remain in possession until the appellate forum has had a fair opportunity to examine the legality of the order sought to be challenged. To dispossess a long-term possessor during pendency of revision is to defeat the very purpose of the statutory remedy."
The Court further noted that the petitioner had been in possession for over ten years, a factor that, while not conferring title, supports the equitable need to preserve status quo pending final adjudication. The Court rejected the State’s argument that unlawful possession justifies immediate dispossession, emphasizing that legality must be determined by the appellate authority, not by executive action.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that status quo must be maintained during the pendency of revision petitions before the Board of Revenue, and directed the Board to decide the stay application within twelve weeks. Dispossession is prohibited until then.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Status Quo Is Not Optional in Pending Appeals
- Practitioners must immediately move for stay applications in all revenue appeals involving possession
- Courts will treat prolonged possession as a factor favoring preservation of status quo, even without title
- Executing dispossession orders during pendency invites writ jurisdiction and judicial intervention
Appellate Forums Must Act Expeditiously
- The Court’s 12-week deadline sets a new benchmark for administrative appellate timelines in land matters
- Delay in deciding stay applications may now be challenged as violation of Article 21
- Petitioners may seek contempt proceedings if authorities violate the status quo order
Possession Trumps Paper Title in Interim Relief
- Long-term possession, even without formal records, creates a prima facie right to remain in possession pending appeal
- Revenue authorities cannot unilaterally override judicially recognized procedural rights
- Legal practitioners should prioritize possession history over document validity when seeking interim relief
