Order :

SANJEET PUROHIT, J.

1. Present writ petition is filed with following prayers:

“A. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure-1) issued by the learned Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer in Jodhpur Tenancy Revision NO. 1450/2021 and the order dated 22.02.2021 (Annexure-3) issued by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority Jodhpur in Appeal 2019-00354 RAA Jodhpur, 2019-018 RTA 225 titled as Suleman Khan vs. Haji Khan & Anr. May kindly be quashed and set aside and the order dated 16.09.2020 (Annexure-7) issued by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer Bilara, District Jodhpur in the Revenue Application NO. 17/2019 may kindly be upheld and maintained.

B. Any other appropriate order or directions, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

C. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Explaining the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner, who is the khatedar of land Khasra No. 333 (10 Bigha) and Khasra No. 331/4 (18 Bigha 12 Biswa), filed an application under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“Act of 1955”) seeking permission for a 30-feet access/way through government land (Khasra No.331) which connects his field with the main road.

2.1 Learned counsel further stated that, since the requested access lay across government land, the SDO, Jodhpur, called for a report from the Tehsildar, Bilara. The Tehsildar recommended granting the access through Khasra No. 331. Relying on a Revenue (Group 6) Department Circular dated 14.06.2013 and the Tehsildar's factual report dated 16.09.2020, the SDO, Jodhpur, allowed the 30-foot way vide order dated 16.09.2020, subject to payment of compensation at double the DLC rate.

2.2 Challenging the SDO's order dated 16.09.2020, Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal, claiming 40 years' possession over Khasra No. 331 and urging an alternative shorter route through Khasra No. 331/3. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority (“RAA”) noted that, though the petitioner sought access over government land, a shorter alternative existed via Respondent No.2's holding in Khasra No. 331/3.

2.3 While holding that the SDO had failed to consider this viable shorter route, RAA vide order dated 22.02.2021 quashed the order dated 16.09.2020, set it aside, and directed re-initiation of proceedings with impleadment of the khatedar/tenant of Khasra No. 331/3 (Respondent No. 2) for passing fresh orders. Challenging the RAA's order dated 22.02.2021, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue (“BOR”), which was dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2025.

2.4 Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner instituted this writ petition, assailing their validity on the ground that the authorities erred in remanding the matter to the SDO, Bilara. It is contended that the sought public way traversed government land (Khasra No. 331), rendering Respondent No. 2's objections irrelevant and lacking any basis for appellate consideration. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the Revenue (Group-6) Department Circular dated 14.06.2013, which mandates granting such ways from government land upon payment of double the DLC rate, thereby rendering the SDO's order dated 16.09.2020 wholly justified and impervious to interference.

2.5 Learned counsel further submitted that RAA erred in entertaining Respondent No. 2's appeal for want of locus standi, vitiating the resultant order. The BOR, it is argued, overlooked this critical issue in revision, while both impugned orders suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record, with perverse and legally unsustainable findings.

3. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. S. R. Paliwal, opposed the petitioner's submissions, defending the orders of RAA and BOR as well-reasoned and based on the case's factual matrix and record evidence. He submitted that Section 251-A(1)(b)(i) of the Act of 1955, addresses onl