1. Instant intra-court appeal has been filed assailing order of the Id. Single Judge dated 05.12.2013, confirming the orders of three revenue courts in arriving to the conclusion that the respondents have been using the way adjoining to boundary of Khasra Nos. 125 & 129 and that being a concurrent finding of fact, the Id. Single Judge while taking into consideration three orders of the revenue courts, was not inclined to interfere and did not find any perversity in the finding of fact to disturb the orders of the courts below.

2. It can be noticed from the record that application originally came to be filed by the respondent Ram Niwas S/o Ram Kumar u/S. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 impleading Ramchandra, present appellant, as one of the respondent and his grievance was that the respondent-Ram Niwas has been denied the right of way available adjoining to boundary of Khasra Nos. 125 & 129 which they had been using since 1987 and seeking direction to open the way. The Id. Tahsildar after taking into consideration material available on record find substance in the complaint registered at the instance of the respondent and arrived to a conclusion that it was denial on the part of the present appellant, who was respondent before the Id. Tahsildar, in not permitting them to use the way available adjoining to boundary of Khasra Nos. 125 & 129 vide order dated 26.07.2010 and that came to be challenged before the District Collector and so also before the Board of Revenue at the instance of the appellants where the finding of fact came to be confirmed by both the two higher revenue authorities vide orders dated 22.12.2010 & 31.10.2013 respectively. However, in the order of the Id. Single Judge, there appears to be a typographical error in mentioning the order "dt. 31.10.2013" as "dt. 31.10.2010".

3. The appellants, being aggrieved by three orders of the revenue courts, preferred writ petition before the Id. Single Judge and the Id. Single Judge, after hearing the appellants and taking into consideration all three consistent orders of the revenue courts, arrived to a conclusion that all the three revenue authorities have concurrently held against the appellants that the respondents have been using the way adjoining to boundary of Khasra Nos. 125 & 129 for a sufficient time and the contention advanced by counsel for appellant that they should have partitioned land of these khasras from Northern to Southern instead of Eastern to Western, at least at a later stage was not be accepted by the Id. Single Judge.

4. The main thrust of submission of counsel for appellant is that however, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by all the three revenue courts and confirmed by the Id. Single Judge but still the question which is open to be examined is whether Section 251 of the Act, 1955 has any application to the facts & circumstances of the instant case and whether such an application, filed by the respondent, was at all maintainable.

5. We find that Section 251 of the Act, 1955 can be invoked for claiming right of way and other private easement by a holder of land who is in actual enjoyment of a right of way or other easement or right, having, without his consent been disturbed in such enjoyment and the respondents came out with the specific case in their complaint initially registered u/S. 251 of the Act, 1955 before the Id. Tahsildar that right of way was available to them adjoining to boundary of Khasra Nos. 125 & 129, which was being used by them for a long time and after investigation by the Id. Tahsildar, a finding of fact came to be recorded which was finally confirmed by the Id. Single Judge as well.

6. Counsel for appellant further submits that present application has been decided by all the revenue courts u/S.251(1) of the Act, 1955 and if he wants to invoke Section 251(2) of the Act,1955, at least he may be granted liberty to file a Civil Suit before the competent civil court, if so advised and the finding of fact re