Jabra Ram vs Chandra Ram
2022 Latest Caselaw 11419 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7223/2022

1. Jabra Ram S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 76 Years, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

2. Madhu Ram S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

3. Babu Lal S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

4. Panchu Ram S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

5. Chhota Ram S/o Thana Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

6. Labu Ram S/o Nena Ram (Since Deceased), (Deleted) (The Legal Representatives Are Already Party As Petitioner No. 8 And 9)

7. Babu Lal S/o Rimji Ram, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

8. Anopa Ram S/o Labu Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

9. Chena Ram S/o Labu Ram, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Chandra Ram S/o Kistur Ram, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

2. Dungar Ram S/o Kistur Ram, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

3. Madan Lal S/o Kistur Ram, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

4. Pancha Ram S/o Kistur Ram, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

5. Mukna Ram S/o Kistur Ram, Resident Of Village Kosana,

(2 of 5) [CW-7223/2022]

Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

6. Kabudi W/o Kistur Ram, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

7. Jhumar Ram S/o Balu Ram, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

8. Sayar Ram S/o Balu Ram, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

9. Deva Ram S/o Balu Ram, Resident Of Village Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

10. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

11. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. R.J. Punia
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. R.S. Choudhary
                               Mr. J.K. Suthar



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                Judgment

14/09/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being

aggrieved with the order dated 28th April, 2022 passed by the

Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred

as 'the BOR'), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners

has been dismissed and the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the

Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred

as 'the RAA') has been affirmed.

Brief facts of the case are that the private respondent Nos.1

to 9 moved an application under Section 251A of the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1955')

before the Assistant Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Pipar

(3 of 5) [CW-7223/2022]

City, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SDO') stating

therein that their agricultural land is situated in khasra No.1285 ad

measuring 12.09 bighas in village Kosana and they are cultivating

the said land, however, they are not having any way to access

their agricultural field and, therefore, they may be provided a new

way through khasra No.1292 belonging to the petitioners. The

said application filed by the private respondents was opposed by

the petitioners claiming that the private respondents are having

an alternate way to access their agriculture land and in view of the

availability of alternate way, a pathway cannot be created from the

khatedari land of the petitioners. The SDO sought a mauka report

from the concerned officials. The concerned Tehsildar inspected

the site and submitted mauka reports thrice in the matter and

every time it is reported that the private respondents are not

having any other way to access their land and they can only

access their agricultural land from the khatedari land of the

petitioners.

Taking into consideration the mauka report submitted by the

Tehsildar concerned and after hearing the parties concerned, the

SDO has allowed the application filed by the private respondents

under Section 251A of the Act of 1955 while recording a finding

that the private respondents are not having access to any

alternate way and the most appropriate path way available to

them is passing through the khatedari land of the petitioners.

The SDO has, therefore, directed the petitioners to provide a way

to the private respondents through their agriculture fields subject

to the condition that the private respondents shall pay a

compensation to the tune of Rs.55,350/- to the petitioners.

(4 of 5) [CW-7223/2022]

Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by

the SDO, the petitioners have preferred an appeal under Section

225 of the Act of 1955 before the RAA, however, the said appeal

was dismissed by the RAA vide judgment dated 15 th Nov., 2019

and being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have preferred

revision petition before the BOR, which came to be dismissed by

the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the

courts below have failed to take into consideration the fact that

the alternate way is available to the private respondents to access

their agriculture land. It is submitted that the petitioners have

specifically claimed before the SDO that in view of the availability

of alternative way, new way cannot be created from their

khatedari land. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore,

submitted that the impugned orders passed by the SDO, RAA and

BOR are contrary to the facts and law and, therefore, the same

are liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents has

opposed the writ petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

gone through the impugned orders passed by the courts below as

well as after taking into consideration the mauka reports prepared

by the Tehsildar concerned from time to time, this Court is of the

opinion that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts

below is based on material available on record, particularly the

mauka reports of the Tehsildar concerned, wherein it is clearly

mentioned that no alternative way is available to the privater

respondents to access their agricultural land and the only

(5 of 5) [CW-7223/2022]

convenient way available for passing in their field is through

khatedari lands of the petitioners.

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the

concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below are not

liable to be interfered with, hence, there is no force in this writ

petition.

The instant writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

The stay petition is also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 20-babulal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)