[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhaira Ram Alias Bhavesh vs Mana Ram (2026:Rj-Jd:11708-Db) on 12 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:11708-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1580/2025
1. Bhaira Ram Alias Bhavesh S/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About
34 Years, Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.
2. Jasraj S/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 47 Years,
Residence Of Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.
3. Oma Ram S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 43 Years, Residence
Of Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.
4. Lrs Of Manak Chand, Residence Of Siwana, District
Balotra, Rajasthan.
5. Nikhil Kumar S/o Manak Chand, Aged About 18 Years,
Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.
6. Manju Devi W/o Manak Chand, Aged About 45 Years,
Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.
7. Smt Amrati Devi D/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 55
Years, Balotra, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mana Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Ram, R/o - Siwana, Tehsil -
Siwana, District - Balotra, Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Siwana, District
Balotra, Rajasthan.
3. Smt Mori Devi W/o Ram Lal, R/o - Siwana, Tehsil
Siwana, District - Barmer, Rajasthan. (Died)
4. Smt Heerki Devi D/o Ram Lal, R/o Karmawas, Tehsil
Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rameshwer Lal Dave
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order(Oral)
12/03/2026
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:40:37 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11708-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-1580/2025]
Per: Arun Monga, J.
1. The present DB Special Appeal is directed against an order
dated 09.09.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
15974/2025, whereby the writ petition challenging the order of
the learned Revenue Board was dismissed by learned Single
Judge.
2. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 251-A of
the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Sub-Divisional Officer
(SDO), Siwana, seeking declaration of a right of passage to
agricultural land Khasra No.757 (03.5031 hectares). It was alleged
that the only access to the land was through the western side of
Khasra No.741 connecting to the Balotra-Jalore road, which had
been used for 50-60 years.
2.1 In reply, the appellants contended that Section 251-A applies
only when no alternative passage exists. They asserted that
alternate routes were available, as shown in their map (Exhibit-B),
including a route through Khasra Nos. 2086/742, 2089/742 and
2023/742 connecting to Government road Khasra No.1, and
another route through Khasra No.756 connecting to Khasra
No.778 (Government road).
2.2 During the proceedings, the Tehsildar, Siwana submitted a
spot inspection report dated 26.07.2021. Despite objections that
the report ignored the alternate routes, the SDO, by order dated
27.09.2021, allowed the application and declared a two-gattha
wide passage over Khasra Nos.741 and 2948/2691 as access to
Khasra No.757. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the
Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Barmer was dismissed on
30.05.2022, affirming the SDO's order on the basis that the
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:40:37 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11708-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-1580/2025]
disputed passage had been used for decades and that the
alternate routes were not feasible.
2.3 The petitioners thereafter filed a revision before the Board of
Revenue for Rajasthan challenging the orders of the SDO and RAA
and seeking appointment of a commissioner for fresh inspection,
but the revision was dismissed on 03.06.2024. The writ petition
was subsequently dismissed by the learned Single Judge on
09.09.2025, holding that no alternate passage existed.
2.4 Hence, this special appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge is contrary to law and the material on record. The writ
petition was dismissed on the premise that the only access to the
agricultural land of respondent No.1 was through the appellants'
khatedari land, which finding is based solely on the site inspection
report prepared by the revenue authorities, allegedly conducted in
absence of the appellants. It is contended that the orders passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer and affirmed by the appellate
authority violate the mandate of Section 251-A of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955, as they are non-speaking and fail to record
proper findings regarding the availability of alternate passages.
3.1 It is further submitted that the appellants had sought
appointment of a Commissioner for a fresh site inspection, but the
application was rejected without cogent reasons. The authorities
also rejected the proposed passage from the southern side near
Khasra No.756 on the ground of residential houses and a tube
well, though the appellants contend that the tube well is situated
far from the proposed route and sufficient vacant land exists.
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:40:37 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11708-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-1580/2025]
Despite this, a passage of about 800-850 meters was declared
entirely through the appellants' land.
3.2 Learned counsel also submits that map (Exhibit-B) placed on
record indicated alternate routes through Khasra Nos. 2086/742,
2089/742 and 2023/742 connecting to Khasra No.1 recorded as
gair mumkin rasta. However, these routes were not considered
and the authorities mechanically relied on the site inspection
report, causing serious prejudice to the appellants.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that
neither is there any question of law involved nor is the same
argued. The primary ground of the grievance of the appellant is
purely factual in nature.
5. Based on the said premise, learned Single Judge has
observed that according to appellants two alternative routes were
available to the private respondents for accessing their agricultural
land. However, the material on record did not support such
contention.
6. The learned Single Judge noted that the site inspection
report prepared by the concerned Tehsildar clearly indicated that
the passage for the private respondents to reach their agricultural
land was through the agricultural fields of the present appellants
only. On the basis of this report and other material placed on
record, learned Revenue Appellate Authority and learned Board of
Revenue inspected the land in question and both of them returned
concurrent findings in no uncertain terms that the only passage
available to the private respondents to access their agricultural
field was through the land of the appellants.
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:40:37 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11708-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-1580/2025]
7. Being so, the private respondents have the right to access
their land and the Revenue Board has therefore, rightly passed the
impugned order, which was upheld by the learned Single Judge.
8. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the approach
adopted by the learned Single Judge. We find nothing wrong with
the view expressed by him in the impugned order.
9. We are not persuaded by the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the respondents should be denied
passage through the petitioner's land merely because an
alternative route, however long/spiraled or convulated, is available
to them for accessing their land. The mere existence of a longer
and inconvenient route does not disentitle the respondents from
claiming a passage, particularly, when based on factual findings,
such right has already been recognised and directed by the
competent authority of the Revenue Department.
10. Be that as it may, even otherwise, no grounds for interference
are made out. The impugned order suffers from neither legal
irregularity nor any factual infirmity. The appeal, being devoid of
merit, deserves dismissal and it is accordingly so ordered.
11. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J
Ashutosh-24
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:40:37 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
