JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned Judgement dated 14.06.2023 (Ann.21) passed by Revenue Board, Ajmer in review petition, Judgement dated 28.03.2023 (Ann.20) passed by Revenue Board, Ajmer in revision petition, Judgment dated 03.12.2019 (Ann.18) passed by learned Revenue Appellate authority, Jodhpur and judgment dated 11.09.2019 (Ann.15) passed by learned SDO, Lohawat may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application u/s 251A Rajasthan Tenancy Act filed by the respondent no.01 may kindly be dismissed.

Any other appropriate order or directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in favour of the petitioners, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent no.1 filed an application (registered as Case No.42/2019) under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’) before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Phalodi, District Jodhpur, stating therein that he is having a joint khatedari land, comprising khasra no. 935 rakhba 570 bigha situated at Karwasara Nagar, Tehsil Lohawat. It was further stated that to reach the highway, the respondent no.1 requires a 20 feet way through the petitioners’ land comprising Khasra no.940 rakhba 42.08 bigha situated at Karwasara Nagar, Tehsil Lohawat; such way, as per the respondent no.1, is required as there is no other alternative way, and that, earlier, the said way was used by the petitioner, but later on, the same was blocked.

2.1. The present petitioners filed a written statement, while denying the averments made by the respondent no.1 in the aforementioned application. Thereafter, the other co-sharer also filed their objection to the application in question. The learned SDO directed the Tehsildar to prepare a site report (mauka report), who in turn, vide order dated 29.05.2019 directed the concerned Patwari to prepare such report; the report was prepared on 01.06.2019 and the same was accordingly submitted before the learned SDO.

2.2. Thereafter, the learned SDO vide order dated 12.07.2019 directed the Tehsildar to seek information regarding the length of the new proposed way in question and DLC rate of the land in question. The Tehsildar submitted a mauka report on 22.07.2019, to which an objection was filed by the petitioners.

2.3. The learned SDO vide the impugned order dated 11.09.2019 allowed the said application, against which the petitioners preferred an appeal (registered as 2019RAAJu225RTA132) under Section 225 of the Act of 1955 before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Jodhpur, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 03.12.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred a Revision Petition (registered as Revision/TA/2019/7263) under Section 230 of the Act of 1955 before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, but the same was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2023. The petitioners also filed a review petition (registered as No.TA/2156/2023/Jodhpur) under Section 229 of the Act of 1955, before the learned BoR, which too was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 14.06.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no.1 is using katani raasta situated in khasra no. 1002/939 to approach his land from the highway road, and the said raasta is being used by the respondent no.1 for last many years; therefore, as per learned counsel, the claim of the respondent no.1 cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned judgments were passed without duly examining the objections to the application in question raised by the ot