[2025:RJ-JP:14524] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4534/2025 Ramlal S/o Kushlaram, R/o Village Kanwarpura, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar. ----Non-Applicant-Petitioner Versus Mohanlal S/o Kushlaram, R/o Village Kanwarpura, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar. ----Applicant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Khedar For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 01/04/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, "the BoR") whereby, while dismissing the revision petition No.3279/2024 preferred by the petitioner/non-applicant (for short, “non- applicant”), the order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the Court of Additional District Collector, Sikar (for short, “Appellate Authority”) dismissing the appeal preferred by the non-applicant against the order dated 15.02.2020(correct date 15.02.2022) passed by the Court of Tehsildar, Dhod, District Sikar (for Short, “Tehsildar”) allowing an application filed by the respondent/applicant(for short, “applicant”) under Section 251, Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act of 1955”), has been affirmed. [2025:RJ-JP:14524] (2 of 3) [CW-4534/2025] The relevant facts in brief are that the applicant filed an application under Section 251 of the Act of 1955 against the non- applicant stating therein that the non-applicant has unauthorizedly and illegally obstructed his right of way available along with the eastern boundary of the land of khasra No.1238/868 to approach his field comprising of the land of khasra No.1237/868. The application was allowed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 15.02.2022. The appeal as also the revision petition preferred thereagainst by the non-applicant have been dismissed by the Appellate Authority and the BoR respectively as stated hereinabove. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the non- applicant, inviting attention of this Court towards the report dated 18.12.2020 prepared by the Naib Tehsildar, Dhod in proceeding under Section 251 A of the Act of 1955, would submit that the applicant has an alternative way to approach his field. He submits that none of the authorities has considered the aforesaid report vitiating the findings recorded by them. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 10.03.2025 be quashed and set aside and the application under Section 251 be dismissed. Heard. Considered. A perusal of the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Tehsildar reveals that despite repeated opportunities, neither any reply to the notice was filed by the non-applicant nor, any evidence was led on his behalf. On the basis of report dated 10.12.2021 furnished by the jurisdictional Patwari wherein, it was found that the way available to the applicant to reach his field [2025:RJ-JP:14524] (3 of 3) [CW-4534/2025] along with the eastern boundary of the land of khasra No.1238/868 was obstructed by the non-applicant by putting an iron gate and thorny bushes, a direction was issued to remove the obstruction and open the way. The order was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 16.05.2024 reappreciating the evidence on record which has been affirmed by the BoR while dismissing the revision petition filed by the non-applicant. Since, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three Forums based on appreciation of evidence on record have not been demonstrated to be suffering from any illegality or perversity, this Court, under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India, finds no reason to interfere with the same. So far submission of learned counsel for the non-applicant, based on report dated 18.12.2020 is concerned, indisputably, it was not part of the record before the Tehsildar, Dhod inasmuch as the non-applicant neither filed any reply to the notice nor, led any evidence. Even otherwise, availability of an alternative way is a consideration under Section 251 A of the Act of 1955 and not under Section 251. Upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J YOGESH/37