The main legal point established in the judgment is that even if a party is entitled to a right of way in accordance with the law, the affected persons must be provided with a copy of the application/written statement to ensure a fair opportunity of hearing.

ORDER

1. The case comes up on an application (01/22) for early hearing of the matter.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being taken up today itself and decided finally.

4. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 09/10/2015 passed by Board of Revenue, whereby learned Board of Revenue allowed the appeal of the respondent Chandan Mal and set aside the order of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 28/05/2014 maintaining the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 29/07/2011.

5. Briefly the facts in the case are that the petitioner purchased a piece of land along with the private respondents in Khasra No.58 of Village Nausariya, Tehsil Sri Dungargarh. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a suit for partition before Sub Divisional Officer, Sri Dungargarh. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner along with the private respondents entered into a compromise. The partition suit was decided by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sri Dungargarh on the basis of meets and bounds of the said compromise. Learned Sub Divisional officer also directed the parties to provide a way of 3 meters to the respondent - Chandan Mal till the boundary of his field as per the Revenue Map. This order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 29/07/2011 was assailed by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 28/05/2014 remanded the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer for deciding the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing and taking the reply of the respondents on record. The Revenue Appellate Authority directed the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the question of availability of a way of 3 meters to be provided by the petitioner and other respondents to respondent Chandan Mal for going to his field. This order of Revenue Appellate Authority was challenged by the respondent Chandan Mal before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide order dated 09/10/2015 allowed the appeal of the respondent Chandan Mal and set aside the order of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 28/05/2014 maintaining the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 29/07/2011. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is not correct as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner while giving a direction by the Sub Divisional Officer to provide a way/passage of 3 meters to the respondent Chandan Mal for going to his field. He further submits that the Revenue Appellate Authority has rightly observed that no copy of the application/written statement so filed by the respondent Chandan Mal has been provided to the petitioner before the Court of the Sub Divisional Officer and the order of providing a way of 3 meters for going to the field of respondent Chandan Mal has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority is incorrect and prays for quashing of the same.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Chandan Mal submits that in pursuance of a compromise decree, the Sub Divisional Officer has passed the order and since the field of the respondent Chandan Mal is situated at the end of the fields of all the parties who have entered into the compromise, therefore, right of way provided by the Sub Divisional Officer is in conformity with Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Board of Revenue. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.

8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned orders as well as relevant record of the case.

9. T