##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1787/2025

Bhola Ram S/o Shri Deva Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Payla Kallan, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. Manjula W/o Shri Banka Ram, Payal Kallan Tehsil Sindhari District Barmer Rajasthan.

2. Banch Manager RMGB, Branch Sada Tehsil Sindhari District Barmer Rajasthan.

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Sindhari, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Nandipna Gehlot with Mr. Harsh Raj Purohit

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

02/04/2026

1. Ms. Nandipna Gehlot, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is not in consonance with settled legal principles and spirit of justice as this fact has not been considered that since how long the applicant-respondent was Khatedar tenant of the adjacent land and what was his access to reach on his Khatedari land prior to filing of the application. She further urges that non- mentioning of length and width of the way in the Khatedari land of the appellant is a further legal defect which makes the order of the learned SDO perfunctory itself but this fact has not been taken

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 07:23:27 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 09:02:47 AM)

(2 of 3) [SAW-1787/2025]

care of by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ

petition.

2. She further asserts that as per the want of Section 251(A) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 the necessity must be absolute which in this matter is conspicuously absent. The fact that since long the applicant respondent was using a different passage to reach at his khatedari land without disturbing the Khatedari rights of the appellant makes it abundantly clear that there was no absolute need for the respondent to ask for a way

using the land of the petitioner.

3. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the copy of trace map (Annex.8) making revelation about availability of an alternate way to reach on public road without use of the land of petitioner further fortifying the contention of the appellant that an easy access better than to what has been proposed by the respondent before the SDO was available but this fact was not taken care of. As Ms. Gahlot having not considered the crucial factual and legal aspect of the matter, learned Single Judge has indeed erred in law and fact as well. A further defect pointed out by her that in the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority would be of not considering the appeal in accordance with the statutory provision. As per her, it was better for the learned Revenue Appellate Authority to remand the matter back to SDO for making further consideration. We feel that there is a force in

her submissions and the matter requires further consideration.

4. Issue notice to the respondents. Notices are made

returnable within four weeks.

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 07:23:27 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 09:02:47 AM)

(3 of 3) [SAW-1787/2025]

5. In the meanwhile, further proceedings in pursuance of the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned SDO, Sindhari in Revenue Application No.26/2022 and all consequential orders shall

remain stayed.

(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (FARJAND ALI),J

12-Bharti/-

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 07:23:27 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 09:02:47 AM)