[2026:RJ-JP:24045] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19506/2025 URN: CW / 43619U / 2025 Girraj S/o Panchya, R/o Gwalini (Madhogarh), Tehsil Tunga, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dinesh Kumar S/o Surajmal, R/o Gwalini (Madhogarh), Tehsil Tunga, District Jaipur. 2. Vikas Public Senior Secondary School Sanstha, Madhogarh Through President Ganpat Parashar S/o Surajmal Parashar, R/o Madhogarh, Tehsil Tunga, District Jaipur. 3. Geeta, D/o Panchya 4. Ghanshyam, S/o Panchya 5. Babulal, S/o Panchya 6. Manphuli, D/o Panchya 7. Ranglal, S/o Panchya 8. Ramjilal, S/o Mulya 9. Shanti Devi, W/o Panchya 10. Sukhpal, S/o Mulya 11. Sona D/o Panchya, All R/o Gawalini (Madhogarh), Tehsil Tunga, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Karan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 30/06/2026 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby, Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against order dated 21.06.2024 earlier passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Bassi, has been rejected. Petitioner has also challenged the aforesaid order dated 21.06.2024 passed by Sub- [2026:RJ-JP:24045] (2 of 4) [CW-19506/2025] Divisional Officer, Bassi, and has prayed for validating the site inspection report dated 07.02.2024. 2. It is stated that respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer for declaring 14 feet wide right of way through the petitioner's land and demarcating the same in the revenue records. On such application, an inspection was carried out by the concerned Patwari and a site inspection report dated 07.02.2024 was submitted by him revealing therein that, there is already a permanent constructed house and boundary wall on petitioner's land and therefore, right of way requiring 14 feet wide open land was not available. Such report submitted by the concerned Patwari was objected by respondent No.2 by way of filing objections. The petitioner opposed such objections raised by the respondent No.2. Thereafter, an order dated 21.06.2024 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer whereby, the objections raised by the respondent No.2 were accepted and earlier site inspection report dated 07.02.2024 was cancelled and simultaneously, directions were also given for carrying out fresh inspection of the land in question by another Revenue Officer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bassi, was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a Revision Petition before the Board of Revenue; however, such Revision Petition was dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2025 and order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer has been upheld. [2026:RJ-JP:24045] (3 of 4) [CW-19506/2025] 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Board of Revenue has utterly failed to appreciate that the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was against the material available on record and was an order without authority of law, yet the Revisional Court has utterly failed to exercise the jurisdiction otherwise vested in it and has erroneously declined to interfere with the illegal order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.2 is having an alternative way to approach it's land therefore, no right of way under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, can be granted to the respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the writ petition and submitted that the Board of Revenue has passed the order dated 10.07.2025 after duly examining the facts of the case, material on record and law prevailing at the relevant time. It was submitted that since, earlier site inspection report dated 07.02.2024 issued by concerned Patwari was erroneous and against the actual site position therefore, valid objection was raised by the petitioner in which, the competence to give such report by the Patwari alone was also questioned. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the meanwhile, fresh site inspection report has been submitted on 25.07.2024 by the Competent Revenue Officers, which totally reveals that there was an existing CC Road/public way, which was going through the petitioner's land; however, the same was blocked by the petitioner by way of raising temporary construction, which has caused hurdles in the right of way of [2026:RJ-JP:24045] (4 of 4) [CW-19506/2025] respondent No.2. In the report dated 25.07.2024, it has been categorically mentioned that the respondent No.2 had no other alternative right of way to approach it's land. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that under the circumstances, Board of Revenue has committed no mistake in dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. 7. Heard the rival contentions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Whether any actual public way was existing or not and whether, the respondent No.2 had any alternative way to access to it's land or not, is apparently a factual aspect. Report dated 25.07.2024 given by the concerned Revenue Officials clarifies the aforesaid factual aspect and the Board of Revenue has properly examined the facts and record relating to the right of way while rejecting the Revision Petition of the petitioner vide order dated 10.07.2025. 9. It is settled proposition of law that factual findings given by Board of Revenue cannot be interfered by this Court. The petitioner has utterly failed to point out any manifest and patent error relating to jurisdiction of Board of Revenue or Sub-Divisional Officer, nor has indicated any gross illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 10. In view of above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the instant matter and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby, dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s), disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 9/NEERU