[2026:RJ-JD:11708-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1580/2025

1. Bhaira Ram Alias Bhavesh S/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About

34 Years, Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.

2. Jasraj S/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 47 Years, Residence Of Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.

3. Oma Ram S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 43 Years, Residence Of Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.

4. Lrs Of Manak Chand, Residence Of Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.

5. Nikhil Kumar S/o Manak Chand, Aged About 18 Years, Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.

6. Manju Devi W/o Manak Chand, Aged About 45 Years, Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.

7. Smt Amrati Devi D/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 55 Years, Balotra, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

1. Mana Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Ram, R/o - Siwana, Tehsil -

Siwana, District - Balotra, Rajasthan.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.

3. Smt Mori Devi W/o Ram Lal, R/o - Siwana, Tehsil Siwana, District - Barmer, Rajasthan. (Died)

4. Smt Heerki Devi D/o Ram Lal, R/o Karmawas, Tehsil Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rameshwer Lal Dave For Respondent(s) : --

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order(Oral)

12/03/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.

1. The present DB Special Appeal is directed against an order dated 09.09.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15974/2025, whereby the writ petition challenging the order of the learned Revenue Board was dismissed by learned Single Judge.

2. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Siwana, seeking declaration of a right of passage to agricultural land Khasra No.757 (03.5031 hectares). It was alleged that the only access to the land was through the western side of Khasra No.741 connecting to the Balotra–Jalore road, which had been used for 50–60 years.

2.1 In reply, the appellants contended that Section 251-A applies only when no alternative passage exists. They asserted that alternate routes were available, as shown in their map (Exhibit-B), including a route through Khasra Nos. 2086/742, 2089/742 and 2023/742 connecting to Government road Khasra No.1, and another route through Khasra No.756 connecting to Khasra No.778 (Government road).

2.2 During the proceedings, the Tehsildar, Siwana submitted a spot inspection report dated 26.07.2021. Despite objections that the report ignored the alternate routes, the SDO, by order dated 27.09.2021, allowed the application and declared a two-gattha wide passage over Khasra Nos.741 and 2948/2691 as access to Khasra No.757. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Barmer was dismissed on 30.05.2022, affirming the SDO’s order on the basis that the disputed passage had been used for decades and that the alternate routes were not feasible.

2.3 The petitioners thereafter filed a revision before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan challenging the orders of the SDO and RAA and seeking appointment of a commissioner for fresh inspection, but the revision was dismissed on 03.06.2024. The writ petition was subsequently dismissed by the learned Single Judge on

09.09.2025, holding that no alternate passage existed.

2.4 Hence, this special appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to law and the material on record. The writ petition was dismissed on the premise that the only access to the agricultural land of respondent No.1 was through the appellants’ khatedari land, which finding is based solely on the site inspection report prepared by the revenue authorities, allegedly conducted in absence of the appellants. It is contended that the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and affirmed by the appellate authority violate the mandate of Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, as they are non-speaki