JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging validity of order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 24.9.2013 (Annex. 13) whereby, the Board of Revenue set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer cum Assistant Collector, Bhilwara dated 24.8.2011 by which an application filed under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by the respondent was dismissed and the order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara dated 13.7.2013 whereby Appeal No. TA/2017/2011 filed by the non-petitioner Sajjan Singh was dismissed. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue is patently illegal solely on the ground that no finding has been recorded with regard to prima facie case and solely on the ground that suit is pending, stay has been granted by the Board of Revenue while quashing the order passed by subordinate Revenue Courts, therefore, order of Board of Revenue, Ajmer suffers from patent illegality. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that both Sub Divisional Officer, Bhilwara as well as Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara gave concurrent finding with regard to the fact that no prima facie case is made out, therefore, at the time of deciding revision petition filed by the respondent, it was the prime duty of the Revisional Court to give finding that prima facie case is made out and finding given by both the Courts below are not correct but without recording any finding with regard to prima facie case, straightaway revision petition filed by respondent Sajjan Singh has been allowed whereby the order passed by the Trial Court as well as first Appellate Court has been quashed, therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is not sustainable in law. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that both the Courts below did not consider the facts of the fact for the purpose of giving finding with regard to prima facie case, therefore, Board of Revenue has rightly passed the order to maintain status quo till decision of the suit in which there is no illegality. 6. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that order passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer in revision is not sustainable in law because at the time of deciding revision, the legality and propriety of the order impugned is required to be seen and for that purpose, finding must be recorded by the Revisional Court but in this case, in the order impugned, no prima facie finding has been given with regard to any error committed by both the Courts below. 7. In view of above, it is apparently clear from the order that the order is total non-speaking order, therefore, order impugned dated 24.9.2013 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer to decide the Revision Petition No. TA/4943/2013, Sajjan Singh v. Ram Singh afresh within a period of one month from the date of receiving certified copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the Board of Revenue on 2.12.2013 and it is expected from the Beard of Revenue, Ajmer that revision petition will be decided by a reasoned order within a period of one month thereafter. Till then, status quo granted by the Board of Revenue shall remain in force. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. *******