HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12642/2024 1. Muthari @ Mathuri Devi Wife Of Harinarayan, R/o Village Sakat, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. 2. Rajendra Yadav Son Of Harinarayan, R/o Village Sakat, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. 3. Kailash Chandra Yadav Son Of Harinarayan, R/o Village Sakat, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. 4. Rambabu Yadav Son Of Harinarayan, R/o Village Sakat, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. 5. Geeta Daughter Of Harinarayan, R/o Village Sakat, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. 6. Shila Daughter Of Harinarayan, R/o Village Sakat, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. 7. Vimla Daughter Of Harinarayan, R/o Village Sakat, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. 8. Anno Devi Daughter Of Harinarayan, R/o Village Sakat, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Hariram Yadav Son of Dulichand, R/o Village Sakat, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. 2. Chhotelal Yadav Son of Dulichand, R/o Village Sakat, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. 3. Babulal Yadav Son of Dulichand, R/o Village Sakat, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. 4. State of Rajasthan Through Collector, Alwar. 5. State of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Rajgarh, District Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga with Mr. Pankaj Soni Ms. Gunjan Chawla, Ms. Priyamwada Singh and Mr. Harshit Parashar for Mr. Neeraj Batra-G.C. (2 of 4) [CW-12642/2024] JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘the Board’) by which the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur has been set aside. 2. By passing the order dated 04.07.2023, the Additional Divisional Commissioner has set aside the order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Alwar (for short, ‘SDO’) and remitted the matter to the SDO for passing fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after making inspection of the site. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the report approved by SDO vide order dated 09.11.2021 was an ex parte, allegedly showing the way in the revenue record. Counsel for the petitioners submits that aforesaid report was prepared by the Tehsildar without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 09.11.2021, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’) and considering the aforesaid arguments of the petitioners, the order dated 09.11.2021 was quashed and the matter was remitted to the SDO but the order of remand has been quashed by the Board unnecessarily simply for the reasons that in the revenue maps, the way in question has been shown in dotted line. Counsel (3 of 4) [CW-12642/2024] submits that unless and until an opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioners in terms of the Rule 58(3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (for short, the Act of 1957’), the orders dated 09.11.2021 and 11.07.2024 are not tenable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the land in question, has an old way which has been shown with dotted line in the revenue record. Counsel submits that the opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners but they failed to satisfy the Court below about the existence of way. Counsel submits that all these facts were appreciated by the Board while passing the order impugned, which requires no interference of this Court and the same is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record as well as the order dated 09.11.2021, indicate that the way has been approved by the SDO on the basis of the report prepared by the Patwari and Tehsildar, wherein no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners, which is mandatory as per Rule 58(3) of the Rules of 1957 but this fact has been overlooked by the SDO and thus the matter was remitted to the SDO for passing fresh orders after providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner was reasoned order which has unnecessarily been set aside by the Board. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, there was no reason or occasion available with the Board to interfere with the reasoned (4 of 4) [CW-12642/2024] order passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Divisional Commissioner. 8. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands allowed and the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Board is quashed and set aside and the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner stands upheld. The SDO is directed to comply with the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/29