1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned legality of order dated 16.11.18 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 4.7.17 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Nagaur, affirming the order dated 8.6.16 of the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Degana, directing opening of the new way in exercise of the power conferred under Section 251-A of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), has been dismissed.

2. The facts relevant are that the respondent no.1 to 8 herein having khatedri land ad measuring 6.96 hectare comprising khasra no.14 of Village-Miyasar, Tehsil-Degana, made an application under Section 251-A of the Act, before the SDO, Degana, praying for opening of a new way through inter alia the petitioners' holding, comprising khasra no.29, 27, 26, 19, 17 & 15 on the ground that no alternative means of access to their land is available. The application was contested by the petitioners by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that the way sought to be opened is not in existence and on account of existence of bara, chhapara and water tank etc. on the land of khasra no.29, 27, 26 & 15, it is not feasible to open the way through the said land. That apart, it was contended that already there exists a recorded way in the western side of the land situated in the boundaries of village Chui, which is being used by the khatedar to reach village Miyasar and periphery of village Hapchar. It was contended that the recorded way being 6-7 kms. in length cannot be a ground for opening a new way.

3. The application preferred by the respondent no.1 to 8 under Section 251-A of the Act as aforesaid, was allowed by the SDO, Degana, vide order dated 8.6.16 and directions were issued for opening the new way through inter alia the petitioners' land comprising khasra nos. 29, 27, 26. Further, Tehsildar, Degana was directed to make the entry in the revenue record accordingly.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 8.6.16 passed by the SDO, Degana, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the RAA, Nagaur under Section 225 of the Act. After due consideration, the appeal preferred was dismissed by the RAA, Nagaur, vide order dated 4.7.17.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue under Section 230 of the Act. After due consideration, the revision petition preferred by the petitioners as aforesaid, stands dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioners on the ground that the alternative way available to the respondents is 7 kms. in length, whereas the new way sought to be opened is only 2 kms. in length. Learned counsel submitted that if alternative way is available merely for shortening the distance to be covered by the applicants, no new way is permissible to be opened under Section 251A of the Act. It is submitted that the recorded way situated in boundary of village Chui and two other ways; one from village Hapchar passing through khasra nos.131, 132, 133, 134, 124, 125, 86, 85 and another from northern side of khara nos.19, 20 & 24 of village Miyasar being available, the SDO has acted without jurisdiction in opening the new way as prayed for. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise on account of existence of rooms, bara and chhapara in khasra no.29, 27 & 26 belonging to the petitioners, it is not feasible to open the new way passing through said khasras and thus, ignoring this aspect of the matter, the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in affirming the order passed by the RAA, Nagauar, upholding the order passed by the SDO, Degana opening the new way.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 8 submitted that the order impugned passed by the Board of