JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing order dated 26.12.1995 (Annex.4) passed by the Addl. Collector, Udaipur and order dated 17.8.1998 (Annex.6) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby the order of Addl. Collector was affirmed. 2. As per brief facts of the case, an application under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was filed by the petitioner before the Tehsildar, Dhariyawad with the submission that he is having Khatedari land in Aaraji No. 6/89, 6/90, 6/91 and 6/92 at Dhariyawad where only way is situated near the power house but the respondents nos. 1 and 2 obstructed the way, therefore, the order may be passed to open the existing way. The Tehsildar, Dhariyawad after inquiry passed an order on 6.10.1994 in favour of the petitioner and provided way in question to the petitioner as per situation at site. 3. Against the order dated 6.10.1994 the Rajasthan State Electricity Board preferred an appeal before the Addl. Collector, Udaipur and in that appeal the order dated 6.10.1994 was quashed by the Addl. Collector, Udaipur and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar, Dhariyawad vide order dated 23.2.1995 to .1995 to decide afresh. 4. The Tehsildar, Dhariyawad again decided the matter vide order dated 31.5.1995 and reiterated his earlier order dated 6.10.1994. 5. Against the order dated 31.5.1995 passed by the Tehsildar, Dhariyawad again an appeal was preferred by the Electricity Board before the Addl. Collector, Udaipur. In the appeal it was pleaded that land situated in Aaraji no. 6 measuring 3 bighas and 6 biswas was allotted to the Electricity Board for construction of Sub-Station on lease. Further, it is observed that civil suit is pending in between the parties in the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Dhariyawad, therefore, this way cannot be granted. The learned Addl. Collector accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 26.11.1995. Against the order passed by the Addl. Collector, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue decided the revision petition vide order dated 17.8.1998 whereby the Board of Revenue held that the order of the Tehsildar, Dhariyawad is totally totally without jurisdiction and upheld the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Udaipur. 6. In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging validity of both the orders. The Board of Revenue decided the revision petition vide order dated 17.8.1998 whereby the Board of Revenue held that the order of the Tehsildar, Dhariyawad is totally totally without jurisdiction and upheld the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Udaipur. 6. In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging validity of both the orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the orders impugned in this writ petition are totally illegal and without any foundation to stand because the Tehsildar, Dhariyawad after taking report from concerned Patwari passed the order impugned to open the way, therefore, both the orders passed by the Addl. Collector, Udaipur and Board of Revenue deserve to be quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings at the behest of Rajasthan State Electricity Board are wholly unauthorized and baseless because Tehsildar, Dhariyawad passed an order on 6.10.1994 in accordance with law for the Government land, therefore, this writ petition may be allowed and both the orders impugned may be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently argued that there is no error in the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Udaipur and Board of Revenue, Ajmer because as per the Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 no jurisdiction left with the Tehsildar to allot the land for the purpose of opening the way, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the Section 251 of the Tenancy Act, which reads as under: "251. Rights of way and other private easement. - (1) In the event of any holder of land, in actual enjoyment of a right of way or other easement or right, having, without his consent, been disturbed in such enjoyment otherwise than in due course of law, the Tehsidlar may, on the application of the holder of land so disturbed and after making a summary inquriy into the fact of such enjoyment and disturbance, order the disturbance to be removed or stopped and the applicant-holder to be restored to such enjoyment, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up before the Tehsildar against such restoration. (2) No order passed under this section shall debar any person from establishing such right or easement as he may claim by a regular suit in a competent civil court." 10. (2) No order passed under this section shall debar any person from establishing such right or easement as he may claim by a regular suit in a competent civil court." 10. The finding given by the learned Board of Revenue also reads as under: ^^8- mijksDr uthjksa ds ifjizs{; esa ,oa dkuwu ds izko/kkuksa ds vk/kkj ij fofHkUu rF;ksa dks ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA bl izdj.k esa lcls egRoiw.kZ fcUnq ;g gS fd orZeku fuxjkuhdkj Jh jkeyky }kjk rglhynkj /kfj;kokn ds lEeq[k ,d izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 08-06-1994 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlesa muds }kjk ;g bafxr fd;k x;k gS fd ikoj gkml ds ihNs esjh tehu gS tks fd eSaus v;qc [kka iq= Jh gdhe [kka eqyeku ls [kjhnh FkhA mldk jkLrk ikoj gkml ds ikl ls Jh txUukFk iq= Jh gjhjke ukbZ ds ikl gksdj tkrk FkkA eSaus tehu [kjhnh mlls iwoZ esa jkLrs dk fudkl ogha ls gSA exj vHkh 10 fnu iwoZ gh Jh txUukFk iq= Jh gjhjke o MkMepUn iq= Jh txUukFk ukbZ us jkLrk cUn dj fn;k ,oa jkLrs esa ,d 'ksM cuk fn;k gSA esjs [ksr dh ckmUMªh cukus ds fy, VsªDVj ys tkuk gS exj jkLrk cUn dj fn;k gS lks d`ik dj iqu% 10 fQV dk jkLrk [kqyokus dk d"V djsaA bl izdkj Jh jkeyky }kjk eq[; :i ls ;g dgdj vk;k x;k Fkk fd muds [ksr ij igqapus ds ml jkLrs dks tks fd iwoZ ls gh dk;e Fkk Jh txUukFk bR;kfn }kjk jksdk x;k gSA fo}ku rglhynkj /kfj;kokn us bl izkFkZuk&i= ds lEcU/k esa xzke /kfj;kokn dh vkjkth la[;k 6@87@1 jdck lok rhu ch?kk ,d fcLok esa ls 10 QhV mRrj ls nf{k.k rd lM+d ls [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe rd vkjkth uEcj 6@87 ds mRrjh rjQ jkLrk dk;e djus ds vkns'k fn;s ,oa mijksDr jkLrk nsus gsrq lgk;d vfHk;Urk jktLFkku jkT; fo|qr e.My dks Hkh vkns'k tkjh fd;sA mDr vkns'k ds lUnHkZ esa tc izdj.k iqu% fo}ku vfrfjDr dysDVj U;k;ky; ls fjek.M gksdj vk;k rks iqu% fnukad 06-10-1994 ds vkns'k dks muds }kjk cjdjkj j[kk x;kA mDr vkns'k dks fn;s tkrs gq, fo}ku rglhynkj }kjk u dsoy vius {ks=kf/kdkj dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS oju~ lkFk gh fu;eksa ds izko/kkuksa ,oa dkuwu dh ea'kk dh Hkh vikyuk dh xbZ gSA /kkjk 251 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds rgr ;g izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn fdlh izdkj dk jkLrk iwoZ ls gh py jgk Fkk ,oa mlesa vojks/k Mkyk x;k gS rks mldks iqu% pkyw djus dh dk;Zokgh rglhynkj gydk }kjk dh tk ldrh gSA orZeku izdj.k esa Jh jkeyky }kjk ;g f'kdk;r dh xbZ Fkh fd iwoZ ls py jgs jkLrs dks Jh txUukFk }kjk jksdk x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fo}ku rglhynkj ds ek= bruk gh {ks=kf/kdkj Fkk fd os ml jkLrs ds lUnHkZ esa tkap djrs] ftlds lUnHkZ esa ;g vkjksi yxk;k x;k Fkk fd mls Vhu'ksM dks yxkdj vojksf/kr fd;k x;k gSA ;fn os bl fu'p; ij igqWaprs gSa fd f'kdk;rdrkZ }kjk dh x;h f'kdk;r rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gS rks muds }kjk lUnfHkZr jkLrs dks iqu% [kksyus dh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gSA ijUrq muds }kjk ,slk uk dj fnukad 06-10-1994 dks ,d u;k gh jkLrk dk;e djus ds vkns'k tkjh dj fn;s ,oa mUgha vkns'kksa dks dkuwu ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gksus ds ckotwn fnukad 31-05-1995 dks nksgjk fn;k x;kA pwafd fo}ku rglhynkj dks u;k jkLrk dk;e djus ds vf/kdkj jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 251 ds rgr iznku ugha gS] vr% muds }kjk fnukad 31-05-1995 dks fn;k x;k vkns'k vk/kkjghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** 11. After perusing Section 251 of the Tenancy Act and aforesaid adjudication made by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in the revision petition filed by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Addl. Collector, Udaipur as well as by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in passing impugned order because as per Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act the Tehsildar can pass an order to remove obstacle upon the existing land, but in this case, the Tehsildar, Dhariyawad exceeded its jurisdiction and passed an order for allotment of land to open the way. 12. In view of above facts, no error has been committed by both the courts below to quash order passed by the Tehsildar, Dhariyawad dated 31.5.1995 because the order is totally without jurisdiction. 13. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.