Back
NUPUR BHATI
Premdas, S/o. Andadas – Appellant
Versus
Mangi Lal, S/o. Ramulal – Respondent
Key Points: - The court held that Section 251 applies when an existing right of way is disturbed, whereas Section 251A applies only to laying new pipelines or opening new ways (!) (!) . - The court found that the petitioner's argument that Section 251A should apply was misconceived because a mauka report established an existing way was already present (!) (!) . - The court ruled that the existence of an alternate way does not affect the right of a respondent to reopen an already existing easementary way under Section 251 (!) (!) . - The impugned orders passed by the Tehsildar, Additional District Collector, and Board of Revenue were dismissed as they were reasoned orders passed after giving parties an opportunity of hearing (!) (!) . - The petitioner's claim to restrain the respondent from opening the way was rejected because the obstruction of an existing path falls under the removal of disturbance provisions (!) (!) . - The court observed that the Tehsildar's order of 07.08.2014 was not a non-speaking order reaffirming a quashed order but a reasoned decision after hearing (!) (!) . - The right of easement is distinct from the availability of alternative access routes, and the latter does not negate the former (!) . - The petition was ultimately dismissed as without merit, and the pending stay application was also dismissed (!) .
JUDGMENT :
1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred claiming for the following reliefs:-
1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the orders dated 07.08.2014 (Annex.7) passed by the Tehisldar Ladnu, order dated 09.04.2015 (Annex.9) passed by Additional District Collector, Deedwana and order dated 02.04.2019 (Annex.11) passed by Revenue Board Ajmer Rajasthan may kindly be quashed and set aside and accordingly the respondents may kindly be restrained from opening the new way in agricultural field of the petition in Khasra No. 76 Village Heerawati Tehsil Ladnu, District Naguar.
2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to use the old existing way no northern side of Khasra No.64/285 to enter into his agricultural field.
3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. This Court vide order dated 25.07.2019 admitted the present petition after rejecting the stay applicatio
Section 251A are Laying of underground pipeline or opening a new way through another khatedar's holding or enlarging existing way.
The Tehsildar exceeded jurisdiction by acting before the Gram Panchayat's decision, necessitating civil suits for disputed easement claims rather than summary proceedings.
The court clarified that applications for restoring existing easementary rights fall under Section 251, while those for opening new ways fall under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
The court emphasized the importance of providing the shortest or nearest route as per the law and highlighted the necessity of impleading relevant parties in cases involving way for khatedar tenants.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
