ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed, affirming the order passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the review as also the revisional order arising out of an order passed in the appeal, in the matter of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in purported exercise of powers under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of1955’). 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has made two-fold submissions. The first submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that in the present case, as the application filed by the respondents reads as it is, it was an application based on an allegation that the easementary right on an existing way has been disturbed and the text and tenor of the application was merely to restore the existing easementary right, therefore, such prayer could be examined only by the Tehsildar in proceedings drawn under Section 251 of the Act of 1955. According to learned counsel for the appellants, provisions under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955 would be attracted only in those eventualities where a prayer for opening of a new way is made in which eventuality, a compensation is required to be paid. This legal position was not appreciated by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Board of Revenue and by the learned Single Judge. The application was not maintainable before the Sub-Divisional Officer but it could have been entertained only by the Tehsildar under Section 251 of the Act of 1955. 4. Second submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that this Court, not satisfied with the material on the basis of which the order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, directed a fresh inspection to be carried out and report to be submitted before this Court vide order dated 05.09.2023. Thereafter, a fresh report has now been submitted which clearly depicts that it is not a case of absolute necessity which is sine qua non for invoking power to open a new way under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955. Therefore, in any case, as there was already an existing way, an access to the main road available for the respondents, the application under Section 251-A, even if assuming to be maintainable, was liable to be rejected. Therefore, in any case, as there was already an existing way, an access to the main road available for the respondents, the application under Section 251-A, even if assuming to be maintainable, was liable to be rejected. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in the present case, the application of the respondent was essentially for opening and recording a new way and it was not a case of restoration of easementary right to use a Kachcha Road. The contents of the application clearly show that the background in which the prayer was made was stated that a Kachcha Rasta was being used as easementary right. However, the prayer was not for restoration of easementary right but for opening and recording a new way coupled with offer of payment of compensation. Therefore, the application was, in substance, one under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955. Moreover, no ground of lack of jurisdiction was raised. He would submit that this issue has been raised for the first time in the writ proceedings and no such objection was raised either before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Appellate Authority or before the Board in revision proceedings. 6. Replying to the second submission of the application, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the new report which has now been obtained by this Court clearly shows that except the way which was applied by the appellant, there is no other existing recorded way from any other point of opening from the agricultural land of the respondent and, therefore, it cannot be said that there already existed any other recorded way for the respondents to have an access to SH-61 (Jodhpur to Phalodi). Therefore, the new report fortifies the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer recording a new way for access to respondents from their agricultural land to the main road. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the new report which has been obtained by this Court under order dated 05.09.2023. 8. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the new report which has been obtained by this Court under order dated 05.09.2023. 8. The issue as to whether the application filed by the respondent was required to be dealt with under Section 251-A or it was within the jurisdiction of the Tehsildar alone under Section 251 of the Act of 1955 would require consideration in light of the scheme of the provisions contained under Section 251 and 251-A of the Act of 1955. The two provisions being relevant are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: “ 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 Tehsildar may, on the application of the holder of land so disturbed and after making a summary inquiry 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. 251A. Laying of underground pipeline or opening a new way through another khatedar's holding or enlarging the existing way. (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. 251A. Laying of underground pipeline or opening a new way through another khatedar's holding or enlarging the existing way. - (1) Where - (a) a tenant intends to lay an underground pipeline through the holding of another khatedar for the purpose of irrigation of his holding; or (b) a tenant or a group of tenants intend to have a new way, or enlargement or widening of an existing way, through the holding of another khatedar to have access to his holding or, as the case may be, their holdings of and the matter is not settled by mutual agreement, the tenant or the tenants, as the case may be, may apply for such facility to the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned, and the Sub- Divisional Officer, if he is satisfied after a summary inquiry, that (i) the necessity is absolute necessity and it is not for mere convenient enjoyment of holding; and (ii) particularly in case of a new way through another khatedar's holding, that absence of alternative means of access proved may, be order, allow the applicant, to lay pipeline, at least three feet beneath the surface of the land, along 'the line demarcated or pointed out by the tenant who holds that land, or to have a new way. not wider than thirty feet, through the land on such track as pointed out by the tenant who holds that land, and if no such track is pointed out, through the shortest or nearest route, or to enlarge or widen the existing way, not exceeding up to thirty feet, on payment of such compensation as may be determined by the Sub-Divisional Officer, in the prescribed manner, to the tenant who holds the land through which the right to lay pipeline or have a new way or enlarge or widen an existing way is granted. (2) Where a right to have a new way or enlarge or widen an existing way is granted under sub-section (1), the tenancy in respect of the land comprising such way shall be deemed to have been extinguished and the land shall be recorded as rasta in the revenue records. (2) Where a right to have a new way or enlarge or widen an existing way is granted under sub-section (1), the tenancy in respect of the land comprising such way shall be deemed to have been extinguished and the land shall be recorded as rasta in the revenue records. (3) The persons permitted to avail any of the facilities referred to in sub-section (1) shall not, by virtue of the said facility, acquire any other right in the holding through which such facility is granted.]” 9. Section 251 of the Act of 1955 provides for restoration of existing right of way or actual enjoyment or easement having been disturbed otherwise then in due course of law. It clearly records that in the event of any holder of land who is in actual enjoyment of right of way or other easement or right having without his consent being disturbed in such enjoyment, otherwise then in due course of law, may apply to the Tehsildar. Therefore, the disturbance may not necessarily be confined only to a right of way. There may be situations where an easement of access has been disturbed, the same may be restored on application being made under Section 251 of the Act of 1955 before the Tehsildar. The expression “order of disturbance to be removed or stopped and the applicant holder to be restored to such enjoyment, notwithstanding any other title that may be setup before the Tehsildar against such restoration”, on a rational and logical interpretation, would clearly mean that it is beyond the scope and ambit of power of Tehsildar to decide the title of the parties to any property but only to restore any existing right or easement or any other right which the applicant was enjoying and which has been disturbed. That is the reason why Section 251 contemplates only a summary enquiry. Thus, the purpose and object is to restore enjoyment by removing obstination/disturbance. 10. Section 251-A of the Act of 1955, on the other hand, provides for laying underground pipeline or opening a new way through another khatedar’s holding or enlarging the existing way. That is the reason why Section 251 contemplates only a summary enquiry. Thus, the purpose and object is to restore enjoyment by removing obstination/disturbance. 10. Section 251-A of the Act of 1955, on the other hand, provides for laying underground pipeline or opening a new way through another khatedar’s holding or enlarging the existing way. This provision is not intended to consider a prayer for removal of disturbances of an existing way or easement but to consider a request for opening a new way or for laying an underground pipeline through holdings of another khatedar and that too, for the purpose of irrigation of holdings. Moreover, such an application may be allowed subject to payment of compensation in the absence of mutual agreement between the parties, by the Tehsildar. The consequence of order that may be passed under Sub-section (1) of 251-A is provided in Sub-section (2) and Sub- Section (3) thereof. The tenancy in the strip of a land comprising such way shall have to be deemed to have been extinguished and the land shall be recorded as such. However, the person who is permitted to avail the facility as referred to in Sub-Section (1) shall not acquire any other right in the holding through which the said facility is granted. 11. While the Tehsildar is the competent authority for exercising the power under Section 251 of the Act of 1955, it is the Sub- Divisional Officer, a higher authority, who has been conferred the power of opening a new way under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955. It is thus apparently clear that both the Sections operate in different fields. Where an application has been made with a prayer for removal of obstination on the existing way or easement or a right, the competent authority would be the Tehsildar as provided under Section 251 of the Act of 1955. On the other hand, if a prayer is made for opening a new way along with an offer for compensation, the application, in essence, would be seeking opening of a way and the competent authority in such case would be the Sub-Divisional Officer as provided under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955. 12. On the other hand, if a prayer is made for opening a new way along with an offer for compensation, the application, in essence, would be seeking opening of a way and the competent authority in such case would be the Sub-Divisional Officer as provided under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955. 12. The application filed by the respondent before the Sub- Divisional Officer, though states that the respondent was enjoying an easement of access, the prayer however is that a new way be opened along with an offer for compensation. The prayer made in the application filed by the respondent before the Sub-Divisional Officer does not seek restoration of easementary right but creation of a new way which will have to be recorded as such in the revenue records and would not merely remain an easementary right of existing user. True it is, as stated in the application, that the respondent was enjoying the access through kuchcha rasta. The fact, however, remains that the existing kuchcha road is not recorded as such in the revenue records. The background in which the application has been made is stated in the prayer which has been made in the application filed by the respondent for opening a new way, therefore, the application was made before the Sub- Divisional Officer. Had there been a prayer for reopening or removing the disturbance to restore the easementary access without any prayer for recording it as a way in the revenue records without any offer to pay compensation, in that case, it would have been made under Section 251 and not Section 251-A of the Act of 1955. Therefore, it is the prayer made in the application which is decisive as to whether it is an application under Section 251 or an application under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955. On such consideration of the present case and the contents of the application filed by the respondent, we are of the view that it was, in essence and substance, an application under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955 and not under Section 251 of the Act of 1955. 13. On such consideration of the present case and the contents of the application filed by the respondent, we are of the view that it was, in essence and substance, an application under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955 and not under Section 251 of the Act of 1955. 13. In view of the above consideration, the first submission of learned counsel for the appellants fails and the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that no proceedings could have been taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955, is rejected. On the second aspect, we find that the order and proceedings of the Revenue Authorities were assailed by challenging the correctness of the report submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Considering the aforesaid prayer, this Court on 05.09.2023, directed the Tehsildar, Lohawat to visit and inspect the site and to submit his report before this Court recording the present situation, as it exists today, on the site, i.e. Khasra No. 940 and Khasra No. 935 which is joint khatedari land of the respondent. This Court further directed that the report should reflect as to whether there is another way to reach the Highway, as has been claimed by learned counsel for the appellants who submitted that the land of the respondent, i.e. Khasra No. 935 is connecting to a metal road, which leads to Highway. In compliance of the said order, an inspection was carried out and a new report dated 26.09.2023 along with map has been submitted before this Court. The report is a detailed one, based on the site inspection. However, learned counsel for both the parties have interpreted the map and access positions in their own way and how the map and the report is to be construed, thus has become disputed and requires recording a finding of fact after close scrutiny of the report and the map. 14. In these peculiar circumstances though we obtained the report, we are of the view that this may now be examined by the authority in the first instance, competent to record a finding of fact on the basis of the report obtained by this Court. We, accordingly, refrain from recording any finding of fact on the new report which has been submitted before this Court. We, accordingly, refrain from recording any finding of fact on the new report which has been submitted before this Court. The proper course would be to send the report and map to the Sub-Divisional Officer with a direction to pass fresh order in the matter. It has become inevitable because this Court has obtained a new report and, therefore, the matter requires to be decided in the light of the new report. 15. Issue of interpretation of the map and report, factual position with regard to the existing road which has approach to main Highway, entry points to the land of the respondent, if any, would be matter for consideration by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 16. Even though we have held that the proceedings under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955 were maintainable, the matter requires a fresh look and consideration by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, so also the order passed by the Appellate Authority in revision and review as also the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, all are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer. A copy of the inspection report, as submitted before this Court in compliance of the order dated 05.09.2023 shall also be submitted by the parties along with a copy of this order before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi shall allow the parties to submit their written responses to the new report dated 26.09.2023. Thereafter, such order, as may be considered appropriate, may be passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi. 17. The parties shall appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi on 21.04.2025 and submit a copy of this order for necessary compliance. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi shall ensure to finally decide the case within a period of three months from the date of first appearance i.e. 21.04.2025. 18. It is further ordered that till the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi decides the matter, the existing arrangement which is being enjoyed by the respondent by virtue of earlier order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer shall continue. However, it would be subject to the final order that may ultimately be passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi. 19. Accordingly, with the observations, requirements and directions aforementioned, the appeal is party allowed. 20. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed off.