Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1814 (RAJ)

Sarif Shah S/o Ishak Shah v. State of Rajasthan

2025-11-19

NUPUR BHATI

body2025
ORDER : 1. The petitioners, by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court through the instant petition, have assailed the validity of the order dated 13.10.2025 (Annex.P/1) passed by the learned SDO/Assistant Collector, sanctioning a new path traversing the petitioners’ Khatedari land. The petitioners have further impugned the orders dated 30.10.2025 (Annex.P/2) and 14.11.2025 (Annex.P/3), rendered by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the esteemed Board of Revenue, respectively, insofar as these orders have not afforded ad-interim protection to the petitioners, though their application for interim stay remains pending consideration. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts germane for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioners are the Khatedars and Co-sharers of residential and agricultural lands of the land comprising of Khasra Nos.633/363, 365/1, and 276, amongst others, situated in village Imam Nagar, Tehsil Phalsund, District Jaisalmer. Respondent No.5 set the law in motion by filing a revenue suit before the court of the SDO, seeking to carve out an 18-feet wide thoroughfare across the petitioners’ Khatedari land for access to his adjacent parcel described in Khasra No.363, under Section 251 -A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (‘Act of 1955’), despite the existence of alternative routes. The SDO decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.5 by order dated 13.10.2025 (Annex.P/1), thereby directing that a new 18-feet wide path be sanctioned across the petitioners’ land. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2025, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 225 of the Act of 1955 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer; however, vide order dated 30.10.2025 (Annex.P/2), the Authority declined to grant an ad-interim order for maintenance of status quo concerning the petitioners’ dwelling house and agricultural land. 4. The petitioners, undeterred, sought revision before the Board of Revenue, which, by its order dated 14.11.2025 (Annex.P/3), also refrained from extending any interim protection to the petitioners. 5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders dated 30.10.2025 (Annex.P/2) and 14.11.2025 (Annex.P/3), the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue have grossly erred in denying ad-interim relief to the petitioners, notwithstanding the pendency of their application for interim relief filed along with their appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue have grossly erred in denying ad-interim relief to the petitioners, notwithstanding the pendency of their application for interim relief filed along with their appeal. It is urged with emphasis that such non-grant of ad-interim protection shall inflict grave and irreparable harm upon the petitioners, inasmuch as an 18-feet wide passage is presently being constructed through their agricultural lands and residential premises. In support of the plea, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2888/2025, N.T.P.C. v. The Board of Revenue Ajmer & Ors. , decided on 05.03.2025. 7. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.5 raises preliminary objections while asserting that the writ petition is not maintainable against the appellate authority’s order dated 30.10.2025 (Annex.P/2), as the petitioners’ application for interim relief, filed alongside the appeal, continues to remain sub judice/pending and the petitioners have the remedy of pursuing the same. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The factual matrix delineates that the respondent No.5, having approached the competent revenue authority under Section 251 -A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, succeeded in securing an order for the sanction of an 18-feet wide pathway traversing the petitioners’ Khatedari land, despite the petitioners’ objections concerning the existence of alternative path. The SDO, upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.5, vide order dated 13.10.2025 (Annex.P/1). 10. Aggrieved, the petitioners availed the statutory remedy by instituting an appeal under Section 225 of the Act of 1955. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority, upon due consideration, declined to grant any ad-interim protection while observing that until other respondents are heard and record of the subordinate court is perused, direction for maintaining status quo could not have been granted. The petitioners, thereafter, invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue, which too, by its order dated 14.11.2025 (Annex.P/3), did not find fit case for ad- interim protection in favour of the petitioners and the revision is also pending adjudication. 11. The petitioners, thereafter, invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue, which too, by its order dated 14.11.2025 (Annex.P/3), did not find fit case for ad- interim protection in favour of the petitioners and the revision is also pending adjudication. 11. A writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must conform to the well-settled self- restraint exercised by this Court, especially where efficacious alternative statutory remedies are available, which admittedly has been availed by the petitioners, inasmuch as their appeal as also application for grant interim relief are pending adjudication before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The principal grievance raised by the petitioners is confined to non-grant of ad-interim relief while their substantive application remains pending before the appellate authority. 12. Indeed, as pertinently urged by learned counsel for respondent No.5, the application for grant of interim relief filed along with the appeal is still sub judice before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, and the petitioners possess effective remedy to pursue and press for interim relief before the said forum. The exceptional and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not to be exercised to circumvent the prescribed statutory procedure or to grant parallel interim relief, particularly in the absence of any manifest error or perversity in the impugned appellate and revisional orders. 13. The reliance placed on the decision in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2888/2025, N.T.P.C. v. The Board of Revenue Ajmer & Ors. is misplaced and distinguishable on facts. 14. In light of the foregoing discussion, and being satisfied that the petitioners have not made out a case warranting invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer is directed to decide the application for interim relief filed by the petitioners along with appeal (Appeal No.61/2025) expeditiously, preferably within a period of seven days from today. Stay Petition also stands dismissed. No costs.