The court emphasized the necessity of following procedural requirements under Rule 69 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, for eviction orders, highlighting the illegality of non-compliance.

Order :

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.)

1. This petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”), whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondent against the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as “the RAA”) has been quashed and set-aside.

2. The RAA vide order dated 29.10.2021 has quashed and set- aside the order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk by which the application filed by the respondent under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act of 1955”) has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to be evicted from the land in question.

3. The contents of the petition indicate that an application under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955 was submitted against the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk and the same was allowed vide order dated 22.03.2021 and a direction has been issued to the petitioner to leave the space in order to widen the road situated at the land bearing Kasra No.1789 at Village Mehandwas as per the dotted lines.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the Court of RAA by way of filing appeal and the said appeal was allowed by the RAA on 29.10.2021 observing therein that before passing the order under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955, the procedure prescribed under the Rule 69 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act of 1955”) was not followed and accordingly the order passed by the SDO was quashed and set-aside.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents preferred a revision petition before the Board and the same was allowed and the order passed by the RAA was quashed and set-aside.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made by the rival sides.

7. The question remains for considered before this Court is as to whether before allowing the application under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955, the procedure prescribed under Rule 69 of the Act of 1955 is required to be followed or not?

8. For ready reference, the provisions contained under the Rule 69 of the Act of 1955 are quoted here as under:-

“69. Enquiry and disposal of application - On receipt of an application in Form I, the Sub- Divisional Officer shall either inspect the site himself or get it inspected by an officer not below the rank of the Inspector Land Records and invite objections from the affected persons. The Sub- Divisional Officer after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties and making such further enquiry, as he thinks necessary, if satisfied that-

(i) the necessity is absolute necessity and it is not for mere convenient enjoyment of holding; and

(ii) particularly in case of a new way through another khatedar’s holding, the absence of alternative means of access is proved, may allow the application. The application shall be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer within 90 days from the date of application.”

9. Perusal of the aforesaid Rule indicates that on receipt of an application in Form-I under Section 251-A of the Act of 1955, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall either inspect the site himself or get the site inspected by an officer not below the rank of the Inspector Land Records and invite objections from the affected persons.

10. In the instant case, the site was neither inspected by the Sub-Divisional Officer nor by the Inspector Land Records, and in the contrary, the site was inspected by the Tehsildar, who was not having authority to do so and the power to inspect was also not delegated to him by the SDO or the Inspector Land Records.

11. The controversy involved in this petition has already set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur, in the case of Rampyari Kumhar & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. reported in 2019 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 525 wherein an identical situation, the site was neither inspected by the Sub-Divisional Officer nor by th