[2025:RJ-JP:9115] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22710/2017 1. Rajaram S/o Shri Bajranglal 2. Noraj S/o Shri Bajranglal 3. Pradhan S/o Shri Bajranglal, All R/o Mehmoodganj, Tehsil And District Tonk Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Kanhaiyalal S/o Shri Mehrulal, R/o Mehmoodganj, At Present Residing At Mehandibagh, Tehsil And District Tonk. ...Applicant/Non-Petitioner 2. Motilal S/o Shri Bajranglal, 3. Mohanlal S/o Goga Gurjar 4. Goverdhan S/o Goga Gurjar 5. Bajeram S/o Goga Gurjar, All R/o Mehmoodganj, Tehsil And District Tonk Raj. ----Proforma Non-Petitioners For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aakriti Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Saini, present in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 03/03/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 06.10.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, ‘Board of Revenue’) whereby, while dismissing the revision petition no.3303/2017 preferred by the petitioners, the order dated 15.05.2017 passed by the District Collector, Tonk (for brevity, ‘appellate authority’) dismissing the appeal no.2/2017 and [2025:RJ-JP:9115] (2 of 4) [CW-22710/2017] affirming the order dated 07.12.2016 passed by the Tehsildar, Tonk (for brevity, ‘Tehsildar’) in case no.1/2016 allowing the application filed by the respondent no.1/applicant (for brevity, ‘applicant’) under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for brevity, ‘Act of 1955’), has been upheld. The relevant facts in brief are that the applicant filed an application under Section 251 of the Act of 1955 against the petitioners and the proforma respondents no.2 to 5 stating therein that his right of way through the land of the petitioners/proforma respondents to approach his field comprising of khasra no.400 has been obstructed by them and prayed for its restoration removing the encroachment. The application was allowed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 07.12.2016 relying upon the contents of the application, the evidence submitted by the applicant in support thereof, reply filed by the petitioner no.1 and report of the Patwari Halka Thali holding that it was established that the right of way of the applicant to reach the land of his khasra no.400 through the boundary of the khasra nos. 389, 391, 392, 393, 400, 401 and 399 (for brevity, ‘the subject khasra numbers’) was obstructed by the respondents which was required to be removed. The appeal as well as the revision petition preferred thereagainst by the petitioners have been dismissed by the appellate authority and the Board of Revenue vide orders impugned dated 15.05.2017 and dated 06.10.2017, respectively. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that none of the authorities appreciated that the applicant has miserably failed to establish the right of way through the subject khasra numbers to approach his land comprising of khasra [2025:RJ-JP:9115] (3 of 4) [CW-22710/2017] no.400; rather, from the evidence on record, it was established that he had an alternative way to approach his field. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 06.10.2017 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the applicant under Section 251 be dismissed. Per contra, the applicant present in person, supporting the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. The Tehsildar has, vide its order dated 07.12.2016, relying upon the material available on record including the report of Patwari Halka dated 05.02.2016, held that applicant’s right of way through the subject khasra numbers to approach his field comprising of land of khasra no.400 was obstructed by the respondents and directed for its opening. These findings have been upheld and affirmed by the appellate authority as also by the revisional authority reappreciating and reanalyzing the evidence available on record. Since, these factual findings could not be demonstrated to be suffering from any perversity/illegality, this Court finds no reason, under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the same. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on availability of the alternative way to the applicant is misconceived and misplaced. The availability of the alternative way may be a relevant consideration while deciding an application under Section 251A of the Act of 1955 but, not under Section 251 whereunder, [2025:RJ-JP:9115] (4 of 4) [CW-22710/2017] encroachment is to be removed for opening the already existing way. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /61