Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J
Nanagram, S/o Barda – Appellant
Versus
Pokharlal, S/o Hardeva – Respondent
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 petition
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.
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 legal point established is that the right to a way arising out of absolute necessity under Section 251-A of the Act should be maintained.
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.
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.
The Board of Revenue cannot set aside judicial decrees under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, as this power is administrative and not judicial.
The court reinforced the necessity of adhering to procedural remedies in legal disputes to ensure proper judicial functioning.
Revision petitions under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are not maintainable against interim orders, which are not final adjudications, reinforcing the distinction between revisional and ap....
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
