Judgment 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. The Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 06.02.2015, by which he has upheld the order of the Revenue Board, remanding the case to the Tehsildar, Chirawa, to entertain and consider the application, for which he alone has the jurisdiction under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955'). 3. The Revenue Board held that the application was erroneously entertained and decided by the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955, which empowered him with authority for opening of a new right of way. In the facts of the case, it was not a case of new right of way, but of removing the repeated obstructions which were being caused on the right of way, which was already existed, and for which the application was maintainable under Section 251 of the Act of 1955 before the Tehsildar. The matter was remanded with direction to the Tehsildar, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, to decide the matter, expeditiously, after causing spot inspection. 4. It is submitted that even if the application was not maintainable under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955, the Sub Divisional Officer had the powers under Section 27(c) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956'), of a Tehsildar, to decide the application. 5. Section 27 of the Act of 1956, provides for inherent powers of Courts and Officers, which provides that in addition to the powers specified in Sections 25 and 26, the Revenue Authorities will have all the powers of the Officers, who are subordinate to them. In case of a Sub Divisional Officer, sub-section (c) of Section 27, provides that he will have all the powers of an Assistant Collector and a Tehsildar. 6. In our view, Section 27 of the Act of 1956, conferring inherent powers on Revenue Authorities, is not applicable in a case, where sections such as Sections 251 and 251-A of the Act of 1955, provide for a statutory forum for filing an application. In exercise of inherent powers, the Courts or authorities cannot usurp the powers of original jurisdiction of any Court or authority. In exercise of inherent powers, the Courts or authorities cannot usurp the powers of original jurisdiction of any Court or authority. It is only when it is necessary, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the power may be exercised, the higher authority may, considering the exigency, exercise such powers. It is fairly well settled that inherent powers are not to be exercised, where statute makes specific provisions conferring powers on the authorities giving them the original jurisdiction, or to do the things in a particular manner. The statutory scheme of distribution of powers cannot be disturbed by exercising inherent powers. 7. The Special Appeal is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.