Ladu S/O Rama Vs Bhanwarlal S/O Mewa

Kailash S/o Jagdish, R/o Kasir, Tehsil Devli, District-Tonk. 5. Pushamal S/o Badri, R/o Kasir, Tehsil Devli, District-Tonk. 6. Mathura W/o Badri, R/o Kasir, Tehsil Devli, District-Tonk. 7. Mahaveer S/o Jagdish, R/o Kasir, Tehsil Devli, DistrictTonk.

¶12

Shanker S/o Badri, R/o Kasir, Tehsil Devli, District-Tonk. 9. Sitaram S/o Jagdish, R/o Kasir, Tehsil Devli, District-Tonk. 10. Kanta W/o Kailash, R/o Kasir, Tehsil Devli, District-Tonk. 11. Kishni W/o Mahaveer Prasad, R/o Kasir, Tehsil Devli, District-Tonk.

¶13

----Non-Revisionist-Proforma Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner	: Mr.	O.P. Mishra Advocate.
For Respondents	: Mr.	G.S. Gharana Advocate.
	Mr.	G.K. Sharma Advocate.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶16

Judgment

¶17

03/07/2026

¶18

Petitioner has filed this writ petition with following

¶19

prayers:

¶20

“It is, therefore, prayed that your lordships may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and;

(2 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:24948]

[CW-16003/2024]

i) by way of appropriate writ, order or directions the impugned judgment dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision no. Revision/TA/5362/2024/District Tonk may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶25

ii) By way of appropriate writ, order or direction the Revision petition 5362/2024 District Tonk may kindly be allowed.

¶26

iii) By way of appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the RAA in appeal no. 35/2024 order may kindly be quashed and the stay application may kindly be allowed and the status quo with regard to land & record may kindly ordered to be maintained.

¶27

iv) any other order to which the petitioner may be entitled to in the circumstances of the case may be issued in his favor.”

¶28

It is stated that the petitioner is recorded khatedar of the land bearing Khasra No. 1966, 1967 and 1953 situated in Village Kasir, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the land in question’). Being recorded khatedar, there were exclusive cultivation rights of the petitioner over the aforesaid land with no interference of any other person.

¶29

It is further stated that Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 251A read with Section 209 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1955’) before the Sub Divisional Officer, Deoli, District Tonk (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the SDO’) for permitting right of way to above respondents through the land in question in order to approach their agricultural land.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1955’), before passing an order over application filed under Section 251A of the Act of 1955, the concerned authority was under an obligation to get the land in question inspected by an officer not below the rank of Inspector, Land Records and even the objections in respect of such

[2026:RJ-JP:24948]

[CW-16003/2024]

(3 of 6)

inspection report were required to be invited. Thereafter, the SDO was duty bound to pass appropriate order only after granting due opportunity of hearing to the affected parties.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without following the aforesaid process, in quite cryptic manner, order dated 22.05.2024 was passed by the SDO, whereby, application filed by Respondents 1 and 2 under Section 251A read with Section 209 of the Act of 1955 was allowed, creating right of way through the land in question. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 22.05.2024, the petitioner filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the RAA’) along with stay application. Learned counsel further submits that since it was virtually a first regular appeal against order dated 22.05.2024 and valuable rights of the petitioner were involved, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for grant of stay against order dated 22.05.2024 during the pendency of appeal before the RAA, yet without properly examining the contents of appeal as well as stay application, in quite mechanical manner and without recording any reasons whatsoever, grant of stay order was declined by the RAA vide order dated 19.07.2024.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the RAA utterly failed to exercise the jurisdiction otherwise vested in it, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Board of Revenue’). However, the same has also been rejected vide order dated 20.09.2024.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in case, during pendency of the appeal before the RAA, order

[2026:RJ-JP:24948]

[CW-16003/2024]

(4 of 6)

dated 22.05.2024 passed by the SDO is allowed to be carried out and implemented, it would create irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner, who being recorded khatedar of the land in question, is having prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. However, such fundamental principles were not discussed and considered by the RAA while declining grant of stay order to the petitioner, even then such material irregularity and procedural flaw committed by the RAA has not been interferred with by the Board of Revenue, which is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner.

¶42

Writ petition was vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondents by submitting that on application under Section 251A read with Section 309 of the Act of 1955 filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2, the SDO directed for carrying out physical inspection of the land in question so as to ascertain as to whether any alternate way exists in favour of the respondentsapplicants or not. As many as two inspection reports, one by the Tehsildar concerned and another by the Inspector, Land Records concerned were prepared strictly in accordance with law and submitted before the SDO. After affording due opportunity of hearing and examining the record including the above inspection reports, order dated 22.05.2024 was passed by the SDO in the interest of justice and to protect the valuable rights of the respondents-applicants so as to approach their agricultural land by taking into consideration that no alternate way is existing and available to the respondents-applicants to approach their land. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the RAA was simply an

[2026:RJ-JP:24948]

[CW-16003/2024]

(5 of 6)

order to deny ad-interim stay and stay application filed by the petitioner along with the appeal was pending. Under these circumstances, the Board of Revenue has rightly declined to interfere in the revision petition and as such, there is no infirmity and illegality in order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue.

¶47

This Court has heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material on record.

¶48

This Court finds that while issuing notices vide order dated 15.10.2024, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order to the effect of staying execution of order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the SDO and such interim order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court is still continuing.

¶49

This Court further finds that the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 22.05.2024 is still pending for consideration before the RAA and has not yet been decided finally. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the parties jointly agreed that directions may be issued to the RAA for deciding the pending appeal expeditiously.

¶50

In view of above consensus arrived at between learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition with direction to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously strictly in accordance with law after giving equal opportunity of hearing to the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

[2026:RJ-JP:24948]

[CW-16003/2024]

(6 of 6)

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of with above directions. However, interim order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the instant writ petition shall continue till decision of the appeal filed by the petitioner by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk.

¶55

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶56

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶57

MANOJ NARWANI/62/

Ladu S/O Rama v. Bhanwarlal S/O Mewa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ladu S/O Rama v. Bhanwarlal S/O Mewa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramzan Khan Cheeta S/O Late Aladeen Cheeta, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vikas Automobiles Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Prajapat Son of Shri Sampat Ram Prajapat Vs Reserve Bank of India

Iliyas Khan Son of Shri Sirdar Khan Vs Reserve Bank of India

Femiyash Son of Manoj Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Saini Vs Jaipur Development Authority