The court upheld the presumption of validity of authority orders, emphasizing the existence of an alternative remedy and declining to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Order :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 08.11.2024, whereby, the application preferred under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has been allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite there being no site inspection report, it has been observed in the order dated 08.11.2024 that as per the site inspection report, there is already a way existing on the land in question. Learned counsel further submits that the land on which the existing way has been ordered to be opened is recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Naadi’ in the Revenue Record. He therefore, prays that the order passed by learned Tehsildar on 08.11.2024 is wholly erroneous and against the law and he, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order dated 08.11.2024 is an appeable order and as the appeal lies against this order before the Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.

6. Although the order challenged in the present writ petition passed by the Tehsildar on an application preferred under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is appealable before the Revenue Appellate Authority but taking into consideration the contentions raised before this Court, it is not clear that whether the site inspection report was available on record or not while passing the order dated 08.11.2024. Normally, it is presumed that if an order has been passed by a Competent Authority then there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve that the observations made in that order are false and baseless. Since nothing on record has been shown that while passing the order dated 08.11.2024, the site inspection report was not present, therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Further that the land on which the way is ordered to be opened is a land which is recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Naadi’ is required to be looked into by the Revenue Authorities and, therefore, I am not impressed by the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the land has been recorded in the revenue record as the land of ‘Gair Mumkin Naadi’, the way has been opened. Since the petitioner is having an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the writ jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

8. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the order impugned before the Appropriate Authority in case any occasion arises to do so.

9. The stay application and other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.