JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"(i) That the impugned order dated 02.03.2016 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Annexure-8 be quashed and set aside; and

(ii) That the impugned order dated 25.03.2013 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Pilibanga, Annexure-5 be quashed and set aside; and

(iii) By an appropriate Order the record of the case be called for;

(iv) The application preferred by the Non-petitioner no. 1 be dismissed with costs throughout;

(v) In the alternative to above (iv), if the Hon'ble Court comes to a different conclusion, the impugned orders Annexures be set aside and the matter be remanded back with the direction to the Non-Petitioner no. 4 to decide the application afresh after affording opportunity to the parties and in accordance with law."

3. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the respondent No. 1 moved an application under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955') before the Assistant Collector & Sub Divisional Officer, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (in short, 'SDO'), stating therein that an agricultural land in Chak 1 J.W. at Stone No. 93/359 in Murabba No. 23 in Kila Nos. 21, 22, 23 & 24 admeasuring 4 bighas, and at Stone No. 93/360 in Murabba No. 28 in Kila Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 & 10 admeasuring 6 bighas, totalling 2.506 hectare command and uncommand land was recorded as khatedari land of the respondent No. 1(applicant) in the revenue records. It was further stated that in Chak 1 J.W. at Stone No. 93/359 in Murabba No. 23 in Kila No. 25, agricultural land measuring 1 bigha of the petitioner and respondents No. 6 & 7 is situated.

3.1. It was further stated that adjacent to the said land, at Stone No. 92/359 Murabba No. 22 Kila No. 1, 10, 11, 20 & 21, 2-2 biswa of land was sanctioned as government way.

3.2. It was the contention of the respondent that for coming to his field, he is being using this way, and that, from the field of the petitioner from east to west, the respondent is using the way since time immemorial, but the said way is not sanctioned, and thus, the respondent prayed that since the respondent/applicant has no other alternate way, therefore, the way which is being used by him may be sanctioned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 25.03.2013 passed by the SDO on the aforementioned application, while passing a preliminary order, it was directed the Tehsildar (Revenue), Pilibanga shall determine the D.L.C. of 2 biswa of land, and on the basis thereof, shall compute approximate cost for construction of Bada; the amount so determined shall be deposited by the respondent No. 1 (applicant).

4.1. Learned counsel further submits that against the aforementioned order dated 25.03.2013, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh, whereupon, vide order dated 13.08.2013, while partly allowing the said appeal and setting aside the order dated 25.03.2013, the matter was remanded back to the SDO with a direction to pass fresh orders in accordance with Section 251-A of the Act of 1955 and the relevant Rules.

4.2. Learned counsel also submits that thereafter, the respondent No. 1 (applicant), being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 13.08.2013, preferred a revision petition before the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, which was allowed vide order dated 02.03.2016, while setting aside the order dated 13.08.2013 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, and upholding the order dated 25.03.2013 passed by the SDO.

4.3. Learned counsel further submits that at the place, where the respondent No. 1 (applicant) is seeking the way, the house of the petitioner is situated, and thus, the respondent/applicant was not entitled for sanction o