Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bagh Singh vs Board Of Revenue Ajmer & Ors on 26 September, 2016
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.11/2016
APPELLANT :
Bhag Singh S/o Shri Dhool Singh Ji by caste Rao, aged
about 62 years, R/o Chandana, Tehsil Sheoganj,
District Sirohi.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :
1. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer
2. The Assistant Collectr (SDO), Sheoganj, Tehsil
Sheoganj, District Sirohi
3. State of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar Sheoganj,
Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi.
4. Shambhu Singh S/o Shri Ummed Singh, by caste
Rao, R/o Chandana, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi.
Date of Judgment : 26.09.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. Manoj Bhandari for the appellant
-2-
JUDGMENT
------------
BY THE COURT :
This petition for writ is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 04.11.2015 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12386/2015; Bagh Singh Vs. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors.
By the order impugned, learned Single Bench affirmed the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer accepting a revision petition preferred by respondent Shambhu Singh giving challenge to the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority settting aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheoganj. In brief, facts of the case are that the appellant- petitioner by way of submitting an application as per the provisions of Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act of 1955") made a claim to have a new way for his agriculture land situated in Khasra No.56-61, 63, 64-69, 338, 266/459 in Village Chandana, Tehsil Sheoganj. The new way was to be passed from Khasra No.81 of the same -3- village. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the application under an order dated 05.04.2013 and that was assailed by way of filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority accepted the appeal by the order dated 10.02.2014 and ordered to have way from Khasra No.81. The order dated 10.02.2014 was set aside by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer while accepting the revision petition under the order dated 22.12.2014, the Board of Revenue held that the provisions of Section 251-A of the Act of 1955 provides for way, but that cannot be for mere convenience or enjoyment of the holding on in case of new way through another Khatedar's holding, the absence of alternative means of access is also required to be examined. The order passed by the Board of Revenue has been affirmed by learned Single Bench.
In appeal the only argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant- petitioner is that as per Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the Sub-Divisional Officer is required to get himself satisfied through a summary inquiry about the need of the way and if required the -4- shortest way to be given to a holder of agriculture land.
We have examined the argument advanced. As per Section 251 A of the Act of 1955, while granting way it is also required to be kept in mind that it must be a necessity which is "absolute necessity" and not for mere convenience. In the instant matter, it is not in dispute that an alternative way is not only available, but is being used by the appellant-petitioner regularly, as such, the claim made is nothing but a convenience and at least not an "absolute necessity".
In these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Bench. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. Ramesh/-
I.No.46