- (1.) THIS is a revision against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh dated 4. 11. 62. The brief facts of the case are that the non-petitioner submitted an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer that the petitioners have trespassed the land measuring 35 biswas situated in village Modia Tehsil Hanumangarh and they may be ejected from the said land. The sub-Divisional Officer Hanumangarh passed an order dated 4. 11. 62 directing the Tehsildar Hanumangarh to eject the petitioners from the disputed land through the help of the police.
(2.) HAVING felt aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh dated 4. 11. 62 the petitioners have come up in revision before the Board of Revenue. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was without jurisdiction as no procedure of ejectment provided under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was followed. He has cited Sheo Sahai versus Ghasi (RLW 1957 page 69 Revenue Supplement) in which it has been held that the general rule that special and extra-ordinary powers of revision will not be exercised in favour of interference, where another remedy is open to a party which it has failed to pursue is not an inflexible one. Where gross injustice is likely to occur owing to failure on the part of a court to construe and apply the provisions of law correctly the Board would in the exercise of its revi-sional powers interfere in order to avoid that result. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner has raised preliminary objection that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was an executive order and the petitioners could not come up in revision before the Board of Revenue under sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act without exhausting the remedy of appeal. He has cited Shah Mohammed versus State of Rajasthan (RRD 1962 page 49) in which it has been held that under sec. 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act following conditions are necessary before the Board can exercise its powers of revision. The first condition is that the case must have been decided by a Revenue Court and no appeal should lie in the case to the Revenue Board. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. Since the order in revision is that of the Sub-Divisional Officer and no appeal lies to the Board of Revenue, the revision is maintainable under sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and since the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer is ab initio bad in law and as no opportunity of hearing was given to the parties and proper procedure has not been followed, I accept this revision and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh dated 4. 11. 62. .;