Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, applies to obstructions of rights of way, allowing for jurisdictional action by the Tehsildar regardless of whether the way is public or private.

JUDGMENT

1. This special appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 20.1.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case are that on 8.7.2010, the respondents no. 1 to 6 submitted an application before SDO, Chirawa for removal of encroachment from 'Prachalit Rasta? passing through the land belonging to Mandir Mafi in village Dhidhawa, Sub Tehsil Surajgarh, which was marked to Naib Tehsildar, Surajgarh and thereafter to Patwari. The Halka Patwari, Pilani submitted his Mauka Nazri Naksha report. On the basis of the said report, Naib Tehsildar issued notice dated 23.7.2010 to the petitioners and the petitioners were asked to remove the encroachment. Statement of witnesses were recorded and thereafter on 31.8.2010, Naib Tehsildar passed the order directing to open 10 ft. wide road through the land in question. Against the impugned order dated 31.8.2010, the petitioners preferred an appeal before District Collector, Jhunjhunu, which was dismissed vide order dated 3.5.2011. After dismissal of the appeal, the petitioners filed a revision under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.8.2020. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.8.2020, the petitioners filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 526/2011 before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.1.2021. Hence, this special appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Section 251 of the Act of 1955 applies to private way, whereas the respondents sought relief in relation to a public way. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set-aside.

4. Heard

Considered.

5. After considering the provisions of Section 251 of the Act of 1955, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that Section 251 of the Act of 1955 is not restricted to the right of way or easementary right qua any private land only. Whenever any right of way of a land holder is obstructed, the Tehsildar is clothed with jurisdiction to inquire into and pass an appropriate order.

6. In compliance of the order dated 23.2.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the appellant placed on record copy of the Jamabandi, Nakal Milan Kshetraphal and map, from perusal of which, it is not evident that there is any public way.

7. Even a perusal of the application submitted by the respondents shows that they sought relief in relation to a Prachalit Rasta (prevailing way) and not in relation to a public way. In the Patwari report, the way in question was shown as pathway and not a public way. Thus, we find no force in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal being bereft of any merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

9. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed accordingly.