Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1859 (RAJ)

Bagh Singh v. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer

2015-11-04

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 22.12.14 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the fourth respondent against the order dated 10.2.14 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Pali, setting aside the order dated 5.4.13 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer ('SDO'), Sheoganj, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 251 A of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ( for short "the Act"), has been allowed and accordingly, the order dated 5.4.13 passed by the SDO, Sheoganj, stands restored. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that the petitioner having agriculture land in joint khatedari comprising khasra no.56 to 61, 63, 64 to 69, 338, 266/459 in village-Chandana, Tehsil-Sheoganj, District-Sirohi, preferred an application under Section 251A of the Act before the SDO, Sheoganj for opening a new way through khasra no.81 for access to his land comprising khasra no.338. According to the petitioner other way available to go to khasra no.338 from khasra no.67 is approximately 2½ kilometers long and therefore, it is absolutely necessary to provide a new way through the land of the fourth respondent comprising khasra no.81. 3. The application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the SDO, Sheoganj, vide order dated 5.4.13. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the RAA, Pali vide order dated 10.2.14 and the directions were issued for providing 20 ft. wide way passing through khasra no.81. The revision petition preferred by the fourth respondent aggrieved by the order dated 10.2.14 passed by the RAA, Pali, has been allowed by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the stand taken before the Board of Revenue contended that for the convenient enjoyment of the petitioner's land comprising khasra no.338, it is absolutely necessary that a new way passing through khasra no.81 is opened. Learned counsel submitted that the alternative way available passing through khasra no.82 is 2½ kilometers long and therefore, the order passed by the RAA, keeping in view the requirement of the way for convenient enjoyment of the petitioner's land comprising khasra no.338 was just and proper and thus, the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in interfering with the same in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 5. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 6. It is to be noticed that as per the provisions of Section 251-A of the Act, a tenant or a group of tenants intended to have a new way, or enlargement or widening of an existing way through the holding of another khatedar to have access to his holding or as the case may be, their holdings and the matter is not settled by mutual agreement, they may apply for such facility to the Sub Divisional Officer concerned. It is pertinent to note that before directing opening of the new way, the SDO has to arrive at the satisfaction after a summary inquiry that it is absolute necessity and it is not for mere convenient enjoyment of the holding and in case of a new way through another khatedar's holding, the absence of alternative means of access is proved. Thus, the opening of the new way from the agriculture holding of another khatedar cannot be permitted unless and until the requirement as specified under Section 251-A of the Act, are satisfied. 7. Adverting to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is having alternative way for access to his land comprising khasra no.338. Merely because, the petitioner wants the direct approach road from his agriculture land comprising khasra no.67 to his another holding, comprising khasra no.338, no way can be permitted to be opened in terms of provisions of Section 251A of the Act. It is to be noticed that the petitioner's agriculture land is on the way existing in khasra no.82 and therefore, in view of availability of alternative means of access, the SDO, Sheoganj was absolutely justified in declining the prayer of the petitioner for opening of the new way invoking the provisions of Section 251A of the Act. 8. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue, setting aside the order passed by the RAA, Pali and restoring the order passed by the SDO, Sheoganj, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. 9. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.Writ Petition Dismissed - Order of Revenue Board Restoring Order of SDO And Setting Aside That of Revenue Appellate Authority Sustained. *******