JUDGMENT Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. - This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 22.7.16 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant, questioning the legality of order dated 2.5.16 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, dismissing the revision petition preferred against the order dated 16.5.05 by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Suratgarh, rejecting the objections raised by the appellant against the proposal for division of a holding received pursuant to preliminary decree, has been dismissed. 2. The facts relevant are that the agriculture land ad measuring 6.325 hectare comprising stone No. 71/317 in chak 3 GMD, Tehsil Suratgarh was ancestral land of Mamraj. Mamraj was survived by four sons. Two sons Ramkumar and Udaipal sold 7.1 bighas land to the appellant and the respondent No. 2, by a registered sale deed and 5 bighas land was sold by them to the respondents Nos. 3 & 4 herein. Accordingly, 5.060 hectare (20 bighas) land was recorded in the names of the appellant and the respondent No. 2 and remaining 1.265 hectare (5 bighas) was recorded in the names of respondent Nos. 3 & 4. According to the appellant, after death of their father, the land was partitioned between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 by mutual consent and they were in possession of their respective share. As per the settlement arrived at between them, the respondent No. 1 agreed that he will leave some land for way to the land falling in the share of the appellant and for this reason, the appellant had given 15 biswas land in excess to the respondent No. 1. A relinquishment deed was also executed in this regard on 14.5.02. Later, the respondent No. 1 refused to make an application before the competent authority for recording the way as agreed upon. In these circumstances, the appellant preferred a suit for division of holding under Section 53 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") and for sanctioning of the way under Condition No. 8(2) of Rajasthan Colonisation (General Colony) Conditions, 1955 ("Conditions 1955"). The suit was contested by the respondent No. 1 by filing a written statement thereto. The respondent No. 1 denied the factum of settlement arrived at and did not agree for division of holding on the basis of the possession, as prayed for by the appellant. The suit was contested by the respondent No. 1 by filing a written statement thereto. The respondent No. 1 denied the factum of settlement arrived at and did not agree for division of holding on the basis of the possession, as prayed for by the appellant. He asserted that the holding should be partitioned on the basis of good out of good and bad out of bad. The respondent Nos. 3 & 4 did not put in appearance pursuant to the summon served and therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte. 3. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed the issues as under: ^^1- vk;k fd oknh ,oa Áfroknhx.k Á'uxr Hkwfe ds la;qDr [kkrsnkj gS ,oa [kkrk foHkktu djokus ds gdnkj gS \------oknh 2- vk;k fd oknh ,oa Áfroknh la[;k 1 ds e/; okn i= dh nQk 4 esa of.kZr Hkwfe vuqlkj vkil esa caVokjk gks pqdk gS ,oa blh vuqlkj i{kdkj dkfct gS ,oa nQk 4 ds fcUnq ¼?k½ esa of.kZr jkLrk oknh ds fgLlk esa vkus gsrq NksM+k gqvk gSA--------oknh 3- vk;k fd [kkrk foHkktu vPNh esa vPNh o [kjkc es [kjkc ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkuk pkfg,A--------Áfroknh 4- vk;k oknh [ksr ds chp esa ls jkLrk Lohdkj djokus dk dkuwuh vf/kdkjh gSA---------oknh 5- vuqrks"k \** 4. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the issue No. 1 was decided by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff, the appellant herein, however, issue No. 2 regarding the factum of earlier partition between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 and leaving of some land by the respondent No. 1 for way to the land falling in share of the appellant was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent No. 1. The issue No. 3 was decided in terms that before sanctioning the way, the parties are required to be heard and in the matter regarding division of holding without consent of the parties, it would not be appropriate to sanction the way. At the same time, while deciding the issue No. 3, the trial court opined that it would not be appropriate to sanction the way in the matter of division of holding without consent of the parties and accordingly, while passing the preliminary decree, it was decided to requisition the proposal for division of holding. At the same time, while deciding the issue No. 3, the trial court opined that it would not be appropriate to sanction the way in the matter of division of holding without consent of the parties and accordingly, while passing the preliminary decree, it was decided to requisition the proposal for division of holding. Accordingly, vide judgment and order dated 22.7.04, the court passed the preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff in terms that the proposal may be requisitioned from the land holder for division of holding on the basis of good out of good and bad out of bad keeping in view cultivatory possession. 5. Pursuant to the preliminary decree passed as aforesaid, on the basis of the report of Patwari, the Tehsildar, Suratgarh submitted the proposal for division of the holding. 6. The proposal for division of holding was sent on the basis of cultivatory possession of the parties over the land at the site and not on the basis of good out of good and bad out of bad as directed by the trial court. That apart, it was not clarified as to how the appellant will approach the land falling in his share. In this view of the matter, the appellant submitted his objections before the trial court opposing the division of holding as proposed and claimed that while effecting the division of holding as proposed 0.04 bigha land should be left open for the way to the land falling in the share of the appellant. 7. The objections raised by the appellant were rejected by the trial court vide order dated 16.5.05, observing that the issue Nos. 2 & 4 having been decided against the plaintiff, the claim for right to way stands rejected and therefore, the appellant being bound by the decree passed, the way as claimed cannot be sanctioned. The court observed that for right to way, the provisions are there in Condition No. 8 (2) of the Conditions 1955. 8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court as aforesaid, the revision petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 2.5.16. The legality of the order passed by the Board of Revenue was assailed by the appellant by way of writ petition before this court, which stands dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned. Hence, this appeal. 9. The legality of the order passed by the Board of Revenue was assailed by the appellant by way of writ petition before this court, which stands dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the issue with regard to the earlier partition between the parties by mutual consent was decided by the trial court against the appellant and accordingly, the proposal was requisitioned for division of holding on the basis of good out of good and bad out of bad and thus, the Tehsildar could not have sent the proposal on the basis of the possession of the parties over the disputed land. The appellant contended that while giving the proposal for division of holding on the basis of the decree of the competent court, the Tehsildar was required to adhere to the principles laid down under Rule 20 of Rajasthan Tenancy (Board of Revenue) Rules, 1955 (for short "the Rules of 1955") and thus, the division of holding is required to be effected in the manner that the portion allotted to each party shall be as compact as possible and no party can be given all the inferior or all the superior quality of land. That apart, it was required to be ensured that the parties get separate possession of the land and the portion of the land falling in the shares of the parties are accessible. Learned counsel submitted that the issue with regard to the existing partition between the parties by mutual consent and the agreement regarding right to way having been rejected by the trial court, the division of holding on the basis of the aforesaid principle has to be made in a fair manner. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in dismissing the revision petition preferred by the appellant assailing the ex facie erroneous order passed by the trial court. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in observing that since the appellant had claimed partition of the land as per the possession of the parties and therefore, the proposal submitted is in conformity with Rule 20 of the Rules of 1955. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in observing that since the appellant had claimed partition of the land as per the possession of the parties and therefore, the proposal submitted is in conformity with Rule 20 of the Rules of 1955. Learned counsel reiterated that the partition on the basis of the possession of the parties having not been accepted by the trial court, the proposal was required to be sent in terms of the preliminary decree on the basis of good out of good and bad out of bad principle, in conformity with the guidelines incorporated in Rule 20 of the Rules of 1955. 10. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the issue Nos. 2 & 4 regarding the claim of the appellant for providing a way to the land falling in his share, on the basis of the settlement alleged to have arrived at between the parties having already rejected by the trial court while passing the preliminary decree, no proposal providing the way could have been sent by the Tehsildar, going behind the preliminary decree and thus, the order passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the revision petition preferred by the appellant against the order passed by the trial court, rejecting the objections raised on his behalf, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction and therefore, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference in exercise of intra court appeal jurisdiction. 11. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 12. Indisputably, by way of the suit filed, the appellant claimed division of holding on the basis of the possession of the parties over the land falling in their share pursuant to the partition alleged to have been effected by mutual consent. That apart, the appellant also claimed that as per settlement arrived at, the respondent No. 1 had agreed to leave 1 biswa land each out of the land comprising kila Nos. 5, 6, 15 & 16 respectively and in lieu thereof, the appellant had given him 17 biswas land in excess of the land falling in his share. That apart, the appellant also claimed that as per settlement arrived at, the respondent No. 1 had agreed to leave 1 biswa land each out of the land comprising kila Nos. 5, 6, 15 & 16 respectively and in lieu thereof, the appellant had given him 17 biswas land in excess of the land falling in his share. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 denied the factum of partition as aforesaid, as also the alleged agreement regarding the way to be provided to the appellant and claimed that the division of holding must be effected on the basis of the principle good out of good and bad out of bad. 13. As noticed above, the issue No. 2 regarding partition between the parties in terms of the settlement arrived at and accordingly, their possession over the land falling in their share and existence of the land left open for way to the land falling in the share of the appellant was decided by the trial court in favour of the appellant and against the respondent No. 1. Similarly, the issue No. 4 regarding the appellants claim for sanction of the way in the middle of the agriculture field was also decided against the appellant, however, it was categorically observed that before sanctioning the way, the parties are required to be heard and the way cannot be sanctioned without the consent of the parties. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the matter with regard to the sanctioning of the way while effecting the division of holding on the basis of good out of good and bad out of bad was not required to be gone into. Rather, the trial court having passed the preliminary decree on the basis of the principle of good out of good and bad out of bad, while rejecting the settlement arrived at between the parties as aforesaid, the division of holding is required to be made adhering to the principles laid down under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1955. Rather, the trial court having passed the preliminary decree on the basis of the principle of good out of good and bad out of bad, while rejecting the settlement arrived at between the parties as aforesaid, the division of holding is required to be made adhering to the principles laid down under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1955. It is true that as per Rule 20(e), the plots which are in separate possession of the tenant shall as far as possible be allotted to the tenant if they are not in excess of his share but then, while effecting division of holding, the other factor regarding the valuation of the portion allotted to each party being proportionate to his share in the holding, is also required to be taken in to consideration. If the co-tenants are allotted equal portions proportionate to their share and the portion falling in one of the co-tenant is not accessible then obviously, the valuation of the portion equally divided is bound to be disturbed. A perusal of proposal submitted reveals that as per the proposal of division of holding, the land ad measuring 2.745 hectare is shown to be in possession of the respondent No. 1 whereas, the land in possession of the appellant is shown to be 2.315 hectare and thus, the land in possession of the respondent No. 1 is admittedly in excess. Moreover, there is absolutely no reason as to why the matter with regard to accessibility of the land falling in the shares of the appellant and the respondent No. 1 shall not be considered by the trial court while giving effect to the proposal for division of holding in proportion to their respective share, after giving an opportunity of hearing to them as concluded while deciding the issue No. 4 so that none of the co-sharer is deprived of the beneficial use of the land. 14. In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court has committed an error in rejecting the objections to the proposal forwarded by the Tehsildar, raised by the appellant and thus, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant as also the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the trial court, deserve to be set aside. 15. 15. In the result, the appeal succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 22.7.16 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, the order dated 2.5.16 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan and the order dated 16.5.05 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Suratgarh are set aside. The trial court is directed to pass the final decree after due consideration of the proposal submitted by the Tehsildar, Suratgarh and objections raised by the appellant thereto, afresh, keeping in view the factual and legal position discussed by this court as aforesaid. Needless to say that it will be open for the trial court to requisition the proposal for division of holding afresh from the land holder, before proceeding to pass the final decree. No order as to costs.