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) (Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:02:33 PM) [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) (Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:02:33 PM) [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) (Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:02:33 PM) [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) (Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:02:33 PM) [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)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:02:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)