Rajasthan High Court
Rameshwar Lal S/O Chanda Ram vs Rajendra Kumar S/O Mangi Lal on 20 January, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
(1 of 3) [CW-526/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 526/2021
1. Rameshwar Lal S/o Chanda Ram, Aged About 75 Years,
R/o Didhadwa, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.
2. Pannalal S/o Dilsukh, R/o Didhadwa, Tehsil Chirawa,
District Jhunjhunu.
3. Suresh Kumar S/o Mala Ram, R/o Didhadwa, Tehsil
Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajendra Kumar S/o Mangi Lal, R/o Dhidhawa, Tehsil
Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.
2. Bhagawana Ram S/o Ganpat, R/o Dhidhawa, Tehsil
Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.
3. Jai Karan S/o Ganpat, R/o Dhidhawa, Tehsil Chirawa,
District Jhunjhunu.
4. Dalbeer Singh S/o Ganpat, R/o Dhidhawa, Tehsil Chirawa,
District Jhunjhunu.
5. Hawa Singh S/o Ganpat, R/o Dhidhawa, Tehsil Chirawa,
District Jhunjhunu.
6. Bhadar S/o Sanwal Ram, R/o Dhidhawa, Tehsil Chirawa,
District Jhunjhunu.
7. Radhey Shyam S/o Rameshwar Lal, R/o Dhidhawa, Tehsil
Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.
8. Nayab Tehsildar, Surajgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Agrawal
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
20/01/2021
This writ petition has been filed against the judgment dated
11.08.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby, the
(2 of 3) [CW-526/2021]
revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the
District Collector, Jhunjhunu dated 03.05.2011 dismissing the
appeal against the order dated 31,.08.2010 passed by Naib
Tehsildar, Surajgarh under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy
Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act of 1955), has been dismissed.
The only contention raised by learned counsel for the
petitioners is that under Section 251 of the Act of 1955, the
Revenue Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain an application
with regard to public way and the remedy is confined with respect
to easementary right qua private land only. Drawing attention of
this Court towards the application (Annexure-1) filed by the non-
petitioners-applicants, he submitted that the non-petitioners have
pleaded the way in question to be public way and hence, the
application itself was not maintainable. Learned counsel relied
upon a judgment of this Court in case Badri Lal Vs. Moda AIR
1979 Raj 142 in support of his contention.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused
the record. Section 251 of the Act of 1955 reads as under:
"251.Rights of way and other private
easement-- (1) In the event of any holder of land, in
actual enjoyment of a right of way or other easement
or right, having, without his consent, been disturbed
in such enjoyment otherwise than in due course of
law, the Tehsildar may, on the application of the
holder of land so disturbed and after making a
summary inquiry into the fact of such enjoyment and
disturbance, order the disturbance to be removed or
stopped and the applicant-holder to be restored to
such enjoyment, notwithstanding any other title that
may be set up before the Tehsildar against such
restoration.
(2) No order passed under this section shall debar any
person from establishing such right or easement as he
may claim by a regular suit in a competent civil court."
(3 of 3) [CW-526/2021]
A perusal of the provisions contained in Section 251 reveals
that it is not restricted to the right of way or easementary right
qua any private land only. Whenever any right of way of a land
holder is obstructed, the Tehsildar is clothed with jurisdiction to
inquire into and pass an appropriate order. The reliance placed by
learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of this Court
in case of Badri Lal Vs. Moda (supra) is misconceived as it has
no applicability in the present case.
This writ petition has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/69
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
