JUDGMENT/ORDER : This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 14.7.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, Nagaur (for short ‘the BoR’) in Revision/TA No.6689/2019/Nagaur whereby, the revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. The said revision petition was filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 4.10.2019 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur (for short ‘the RAA’) in Appeal No.23/2018, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 3. Before the RAA, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.9.2012 passed by the SDO, Parbatsar, Distt. Nagaur (for short ‘the SDO’) whereby, the application filed by the respondent No.2 – Nanu Ram for providing him a way to approach his agricultural field from the agricultural fields of the petitioners and other Khatedars has been allowed as per the consent of the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners never gave their consent for providing way to the respondent No.2 - Nanu Ram for approaching his field from their agricultural land. It is submitted that in the proposed way, a house, well and samadhi of petitioner’s father are situated and if the proposed way is allowed to open, the same will be destroyed and the petitioners will be suffered irreparable loss. 5. Learned counsel has submitted that the RAA as well as the BoR have failed to consider this aspect of the matter and had illegally rejected the appeal and revision filed by the petitioners. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders passed by the BoR as well as the RAA may be set aside. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 7. The respondent No.2 – Nanu Ram has moved an application under Section 251-A and 34(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the SDO with a prayer to provide him way for approaching his agricultural field, which is falling in Khasra No.127/2. The SDO has inspected the site along with the Patwari and all the respective Khatedars of Khasra Nos.125, 127/1, 127/2, 126, 138, 139 and 137/2 were present there and gave their consent for providing way to the respondent No.2 – Nanu Ram from Khasra Nos.125, 127/1, 127/2, 126, 138, 139 and 137/2. 8. The SDO has inspected the site along with the Patwari and all the respective Khatedars of Khasra Nos.125, 127/1, 127/2, 126, 138, 139 and 137/2 were present there and gave their consent for providing way to the respondent No.2 – Nanu Ram from Khasra Nos.125, 127/1, 127/2, 126, 138, 139 and 137/2. 8. In view of the consent given by all the Khatedars, the SDO prepared a mauka report while observing that all the Khatedars have consented to provide way in the above referred Khasra Numbers and got signatures and thumb impression of all the Khatedars on the site inspection report, on the basis of which, the SDO has passed the order dated 26.9.2012 whereby, the way was provided to the respondent No.2 – Nanu Ram from the Khasra Nos.125, 127/1, 127/2, 126, 138, 139 and 137/2. 9. After passing of the order dated 26.9.2012, the petitioners did not raise grievance before any authority at any point of time, however, on 10.1.2018, they have filed appeal before the RAA challenging the order dated 26.9.2012 passed by the SDO. The RAA while condoning the delay in filing the appeal has dismissed the same by observing that all the Khatedars including the petitioners have given their consent before the SDO and on the basis of which, he has sanctioned the way in favour of the respondent No.2 – Nanu Ram and there is no merit in the challenge raised by the petitioners to the order dated 26.9.2012 passed by the SDO. 10. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have preferred revision before the BoR, however, the same has been dismissed vide order dated 14.7.2022, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that their house, well and samadhi are falling in the sanctioned way is not supported by any documentary evidence. It is noticed that even before the SDO, the petitioners had never raised any such objection, but have given their consent in the presence of all the Khatedars. Once, the Khatedars have given their consent for sanctioning the way, normally, it is not open for them to withdraw their consent and that too after so many years. 12. It is noticed that even before the SDO, the petitioners had never raised any such objection, but have given their consent in the presence of all the Khatedars. Once, the Khatedars have given their consent for sanctioning the way, normally, it is not open for them to withdraw their consent and that too after so many years. 12. In the writ petition, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that a criminal case was registered by them against the respondent No.2 – Nanu Ram and his family members in the years 2017, in which, charge-sheet has been filed by the police. 13. This Court is of the opinion that though in the year 2012, the petitioners gave their consent for sanctioning way in favour of respondent No.2 – Nanu Ram, however, in the year 2017, when some quarrel took place between the respondent No.2 – Nanu Ram, his family members and the petitioners, which resulted into a criminal case, the petitioners gave second thought to their consent and only with the intention to resile from that consent, have filed appeal before the RAA challenging the validity of the consent order passed by the SDO. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed as such. 15. Stay petition is also dismissed.