[2025:RJ-JP:16895-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 349/2025 Ramlal S/o Kushlaram, R/o Village Kanwarpura, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar. ----Appellant Versus Mohanlal S/o Kushlaram, R/o Village Kanwarpura Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hemant Taylor on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Khedar. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 22/04/2025 This appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4534/2025 whereby the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner (appellant herein) was dismissed. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the learned Singe Judge has failed to consider the facts and law involved in the matter, therefore, prayed for allowing the present appeal. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, observed as under:- “ 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 dated10.12.2021 furnished by the [2025:RJ-JP:16895-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-349/2025] jurisdictional Patwari wherein, it was found that the way available to the applicant to reach his field 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.” Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshad Ahmad and others vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj and others, reported in 2008 (9) Supreme Court Cases 1 in para 38 has held as under:- “38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals [2025:RJ-JP:16895-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-349/2025] throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law.” We have considered the fact that before the Revenue Authority i.e. Tehsildar, the appellant-petitioner neither appeared nor filed any reply to show cause notice served upon him and he tried to transfer the matter by filing of various applications, thereafter, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-petitioner and the revision filed before the Board of Revenue against the orders passed by the courts below was also dismissed. Since, concurrent finding has been recorded by the courts below, therefore, in our considered view, no case is made out for interference by this Court in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, this appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/62