[2025:RJ-JP:2269] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3846/2024 1. Kailashi W/o Gopal, 2. Kalu S/o Ramswaroop, 3. Nahna S/o Ramswaroop, 4. Prabhatya S/o Panchya, 5. Banwari S/o Ramswaroop, 6. Murari S/o Gopal, 7. Lohadsi W/o Ramjilal, 8. Hari S/o Gopal, All R/o Dhani Pemlya Wali Raniwas, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa. ----Defendants-Petitioners Versus 1. Badri S/o Mangya, 2. Moolya S/o Mangya, Both R/o Raniwas, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa. ----Plaintiffs-Respondents 3. State of Rajasthan, through Tehsildar Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa. 4. UCO Bank, Branch Lahadi Ka Bas, Head Quarter Nangal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa through Branch Manager. 5. State Bank of India, Dausa, District Dausa through Branch Manager. ----Defendants-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Neeraj Batra, Govt. Advocate with Mr.Ravindra Pal Singh, Adv. Mr.Vivek Joshi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 16/01/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of orders dated 29.08.2022, 05.10.2023 and 20.02.2024 allowing the application of private respondent Nos.1 & 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents’) under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, [2025:RJ-JP:2269] (2 of 4) [CW-3846/2024] 1955 (for short the ‘the Act of 1955’), dismissing the appeal and revision of the petitioner respectively. 2. The brief facts are that the respondents filed an application under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955 pleading that passage to the land of the respondents was passing through khasra Nos.842, 845, 897, 898 and 899 situated in Village Raniwas, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa. The grievance raised was that petitioner intended to block the way by correcting barbed wires fencing and by putting stones. The prayer was made that the existing passage be declared as the gair mumkin rasta. The application was allowed vide order dated 29.08.2022 directing the Tehsildar that on deposit of compensation amount, the passage of 15 ft. wide shown in the attached map in Saffron colour be recorded in the revenue record as passage. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed, hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for removal of the encroachment the remedy was under Section 251 of the Act of 1955. The application filed was not within ambit of Section 251- A of the Act of 1955, neither new passage was sought nor widening of the existing way was asked for. The contention is that declaration could not have been granted under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955. 4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the only passage to the land of respondents was being blocked and the petitioner availed the remedy by filing an application under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955. [2025:RJ-JP:2269] (3 of 4) [CW-3846/2024] 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6. None of the authorities while dealing with the application filed under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955 dealt with issue of jurisdiction vis-a-vis the prayer made under Section 251(A) of the Act of 1955. 7. Section 251(1) of the Act of 1955 deals with disturbance of a right of way or other easement rights. Under Section 251(2) of the Act of 1955 Tehsildar is empowered to restore the enjoyment of right to way or easement or right having been disturbed. The order is to be passed after summary enquiry of the facts, despite the other title being set-up against such a restoration. Under Sub-section (2) it is stipulated that order passed under Section 251 of the Act of 1955 shall not debar any person from establishing right or easement in a regular suit before a competent civil court. 8. Section 251-A of the Act of 1955 deals with laying of the underground pipeline or opening a new way through another khatedar holding or enlarging the existing way. 9. It is an uncontested that as per the respondents fifteen feet. wide passage was already existing. There was neither a prayer for opening a new way nor for widening the existing way yet the application under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955 was entertained. 10. It would be appropriate to note that in case the grievance of petitioner was with regard to disturbance and blockage being created in the existing passage, the remedy would have been under Section 251 before the Tehsildar and not before the SDO. [2025:RJ-JP:2269] (4 of 4) [CW-3846/2024] 11. The contention that relief sought by filing application under section 251-A of Act of 1955 do not fall with ambit of section 251- A deserves acceptance. The petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. 12. Needless to say the respondents shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law for redressal of surviving grievances. (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J Himanshu Soni/35 Reportable:- Yes