SMT. HARU vs GAINARAM

[2026:RJ-JD:26951]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16603/2025
Smt. Haru W/o Tikuram D/o Kumbharam Jat, Aged About 50
Years, Resident Of Ridmalsar Tehsil Aa District Phalodi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Gainaram S/o Gorkharam, Resident Of Chouhano Ka
Bera, Tehsil Aau, District Phalodi.
2. Baburam S/o Gorkharam, Resident Of Chouhano Ka Bera,
Tehsil Aau, District Phalodi.
3. Bhanwarlal S/o Gorkharam, Resident Of Chouhano Ka
Bera, Tehsil Aau, District Phalodi.
4. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar Aau Distt.
Phalodi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur.
Mr. Kunal Upadhyay.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, G.C.
Mr. Roshan Lal.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
JUDGMENT
Reportable
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 06.05.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 06.05.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 11.06.2026
1. Present writ petition is filed with following prayers:
“I. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner may
kindly be allowed;
II. The impugned order dated 19.08.2025 (Annex. 13)
passed by the learned Board of Revenue Ajmer may kindly be
set aside; and
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(2 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
III. Restore the well-reasoned order dated 18.06.2024
passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, and the
order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Assistant Collector &
SDO, Aau, whereby the permanent way from point d to E was
directed to be recorded in favour of the petitioner.
IV. Any other order of direction, which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble
petitioner.”
2. While elucidating the facts of present case, learned counsel
for petitioner submits that petitioner had filed an application under
Section 251A of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“ Act of 1955 ”)
seeking grant of a 30 feet wide way for her khatedari land situated
in Khasra No. 1059/1008, Village Kharia, Patwar Mandal
Ridmalsar, Tehsil Aau, to the Government road through khatedari
land of respondents situated in Khasra No. 1053/1009.
2.1 It is stated that aforesaid application preferred by petitioner
came to be allowed by learned Assistant Collector & Sub-Divisional
Officer, Aau (“SDO”) vide order dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure-6).
Learned SDO, while placing reliance upon site inspection report
submitted by Tehsildar, Aau, and upon being satisfied regarding
the existence of absolute necessity as well as absence of any
alternative shortest access / way, exercised powers under Section
251A of Act of 1955 and granted a way marked as ‘CDE’ in the site
report (Annexure-5).
2.2 Being aggrieved by order dated 27.02.2024, respondents
preferred an appeal under Section 225 of Act of 1955 before
learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur (“ RAA ”). Learned
RAA, dismissed said appeal vide order dated 18.06.2024
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(3 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
(Annexure-12) and affirmed order dated 27.02.2024
(Annexure-6).
2.3 Challenging order dated 18.06.2024, respondents preferred
revision petition before learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer (“ BoR ”),
which came to be allowed vide order dated 19.08.2025
(Annexure-13). Learned BoR set aside the orders passed by
learned SDO as well as learned RAA on the ground of non-
compliance with Rule 69 of Rajasthan Tenancy (Government)
Rules, 1955 (“ Rules of 1955 ”) read with Section 251A of the Act of
1955, while observing that where another shorter alternative
route is available, the same ought to have been considered first
and consequently, remanded the matter back to learned SDO for
consideration afresh of said application with a direction to ensure
due compliance with Rule 69 of the Rules of 1955.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order passed
by learned BoR is erroneous inasmuch as it records a finding that
Rule 69 of the Rules of 1955 had not been complied with. It is
contended that Rule 69 merely envisages inviting objections from
affected persons and does not cast any obligation upon the
competent authority to adjudicate upon such objections or record
specific findings thereon.
3.1 It is further contended that mandate of law stood duly
complied with inasmuch as the site inspection was conducted in
the presence of respondents, who, despite being present, refused
to sign on inspection report.
It is also contended that concerned Tehsildar before
conducting site inspection has issued notice to respondents and
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(4 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
thus, proper opportunity for raising objection was duly granted
and it cannot be said that respondents were denied an opportunity
of hearing as contemplated under Section 251A read with Rule 69
of Rules of 1955.
3.2 It is also submitted that although learned SDO passed
impugned order on the very same day the site inspection report
was received, objections raised by respondents were nevertheless
taken into consideration and dealt with. Thus, there was
substantial and effective compliance with the statutory
requirements as well as principles of natural justice.
3.3 Moreover, it is contended that learned BOR travelled beyond
the permissible scope of its revisional jurisdiction under the Act of
1955 by re-appreciating the evidence available on record and
substituting its own findings of fact in place of the concurrent
findings recorded by learned SDO and learned RAA, which is
wholly impermissible in law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents seriously
disputed the factual averments and submitted that site inspection
report was furnished by Tehsildar, Aau on 27.02.2024, wherein it
was falsely recorded that respondents were present at the site,
but refused to sign the inspection report. It is contended that
immediately upon receipt of said report, learned SDO passed
impugned order on the very same day without inviting objections
to the inspection report and without granting respondents any
meaningful or effective opportunity of hearing.
4.1 It is thus argued that mandatory principles of natural justice,
particularly the requirement of extending an adequate opportunity
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(5 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
to controvert the inspection report, were not complied with. Such
non-compliance, according to respondents, amounted to a clear
violation of Rule 69 of the Rules of 1955 and vitiated the entire
proceedings.
4.2 To buttress his contention, learned counsel for respondents
relies upon judgment passed by this Hon’ble High Court in the
case of Rampyari v. Board of Revenue reported in 2019 SCC
OnLine Raj 178 .
5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material
available on record.
6. A chronological examination of facts of present case reveals
that on receipt of application, learned SDO issued notice to the
respondents regarding application and parallel thereto issued
direction to concerned Tehsildar for conduct of site inspection and
to submit report. A reply to application (independent to inspection
report) was filed on behalf of respondents. On the other hand,
learned Tehsildar on 15.02.2024 issued a notice (Annexure-14)
intimating the parties about proposed site inspection. Pursuant
thereto, a site inspection was conducted on 19.02.2024, wherein
respondents were recorded to be present, though unwilling to
append their signatures to inspection report. Thereafter, said
inspection report was submitted on record on 27.02.2024 and, on
the very same day, learned SDO proceeded to pass impugned
order without inviting objections to inspection report or providing
respondents any effective opportunity of hearing.
6.1 As per learned counsel for petitioner since due notice for
conduct of site inspection was issued by learned Tehsildar,
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(6 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
opportunity of submitting objection stood satisfied and no illegality
is committed by learned SDO by passing the order granting way
from the land of respondents, while considering reply to
application submitted by respondent.
6.2 To deal with said argument of petitioner, this Court finds it
imperative to examine scheme of Section 251-A of Act of 1955
read with Rule 69 of Rules of 1955. For ready reference, Section
251A of Act of 1955 and Rule 69 of Rules of 1955 are reproduced
herein-below:
“ Section – 251A : Laying of underground pipeline or
opening a new way through another khatedar's
holding or enlarging the existing way – (1) Where –
(a) a tenant intends to lay an underground pipeline
through the holding of another khatedar for the
purpose of irrigation of his holding; or
(b) a tenant or a group of tenants intend to have
a new way , or enlargement or widening of an
existing way, through the holding of another
khatedar to have access to his holding or, as the
case may be, their holdings of and the matter is not
settled by mutual agreement, the tenant or the
tenants, as the case may be, may apply for such
facility to the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned,
and the Sub Divisional Officer, if he is satisfied
after a summary inquiry , that
(i) the necessity is absolute necessity and it is
not for mere convenient enjoyment of holding;
and
(ii) particularly in case of a new way through
another khatedar's holding, that absence of
alternative means of access proved may,
be order, allow the applicant, to lay pipeline, at
least three feet beneath the surface of the
land, along 'the line demarcated or pointed out
by the tenant who holds that land, or to have a
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(7 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
new way. not wider than thirty feet, through
the land on such track as pointed out by the
tenant who holds that land, and if no such
track is pointed out, through the shortest or
nearest route, or to enlarge or widen the
existing way, not exceeding up to thirty feet,
on payment of such compensation as may be
determined by the Sub-Divisional Officer, in the
prescribed manner, to the tenant who holds the
land through which the right to lay pipeline or
have a new way or enlarge or widen an
existing way is granted.
(2) Where a right to have a new way or enlarge or
widen an existing way is granted under sub-section
(1), the tenancy in respect of the land
comprising such way shall be deemed to have
been extinguished and the land shall be
recorded as rasta in the revenue records.
(3) The persons permitted to avail any of the
facilities referred to in sub-section (1) shall not, by
virtue of the said facility, acquire any other right in
the holding through which such facility is granted.”
“ Rule - 69 : Enquiry and disposal of application - On
receipt of an application in Form I, the Sub-Divisional
Officer shall either inspect the site himself or get it
inspected by an officer not below the rank of the
Inspector Land Records and invite objections from the
affected persons. The Sub-Divisional Officer after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the
parties and making such further enquiry, as he
thinks necessary, if satisfied that-
(i) the necessity is absolute necessity and it is not
for mere convenient enjoyment of holding; and
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(8 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
(ii) particularly in case of a new way through
another khatedar’s holding, that absence of
alternative means of access is proved,
may allow the application. The application shall be
decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer within 90 days
from the date of application.”
6.3 A plain and harmonious reading of Section 251A of the Act of
1955 and Rule 69 of the Rules of 1955 makes it evident that
Section 251A confers a substantive right upon a khatedar tenant,
in the circumstances contemplated therein, to seek a way through
the holding of another khatedar tenant upon payment of
compensation. The provision simultaneously vests jurisdiction in
the SDO to undertake a summary inquiry for determining whether
the statutory conditions governing the exercise of such right stand
satisfied and to pass appropriate orders thereon.
6.4 Rule 69 supplements the aforesaid substantive provision by
prescribing the procedural framework for its implementation. It
lays down the manner in which an application under Section 251A
is to be processed, the nature of inquiry to be conducted, and the
procedural safeguards to be observed before any order affecting
the rights of the parties is passed.
6.5 Significantly, both Section 251A and Rule 69 consistently
designate the Sub-Divisional Officer as the authority competent to
exercise the jurisdiction conferred thereunder. Neither the
substantive provision nor the procedural rule contains any express
or implied provision authorising delegation of such adjudicatory
powers to any other officer. The only limited role assigned to
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(9 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
another authority is under Rule 69, which permits a site inspection
to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Inspector Land
Records.
6.6 Thus, while the task of site inspection may be entrusted to
an officer of the prescribed rank, all other statutory functions,
including issuance of notices, obtaining and considering the
inspection report, inviting and adjudicating objections thereto,
recording satisfaction regarding the fulfilment of the statutory
requirements, and ultimately passing the final order under Section
251A, are required to be performed by the SDO himself. The
scheme of the provision, therefore, leaves no room for delegation
of the essential adjudicatory functions vested in the SDO.
7. A conjoint reading of Section 251A of the Act of 1955 and
Rule 69 of the Rules of 1955 reveals a carefully structured
statutory procedure to be followed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
before a right of way can be granted through the holding of
another khatedar tenant. The scheme envisages a series of
mandatory stages.
7.1 In the first instance, a khatedar tenant claiming necessity of
a way is required to submit an application under Section 251A
before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Upon receipt of such application,
the SDO is obligated, in terms of Rule 69, either to conduct a site
inspection himself or to have the site inspected by an officer not
below the rank of Inspector Land Records and obtain a report in
that regard. Thereafter, the affected persons are required to be
notified and afforded an opportunity to submit objections to the
proposed grant of way. The SDO may then undertake such further
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(10 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
inquiry as may be considered necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the case and is further required to grant a
reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
7.2 It is only upon completion of aforesaid inquiry and
consideration of the objections and material available on record
that SDO is empowered to record his satisfaction regarding
existence of statutory preconditions, namely, that claimed access
is a matter of absolute necessity and not merely one of
convenience, and that no reasonable alternative means of access
exists. Upon such satisfaction being recorded, the SDO may allow
the application and grant a way through the shortest and nearest
feasible route in accordance with law.
7.3 The sequential nature of the procedure prescribed under
Section 251A read with Rule 69 leaves little doubt that compliance
with each of these stages constitutes an integral part of decision-
making process by SDO and is intended to ensure observance of
principles of natural justice before any order affecting proprietary
rights is passed.
8. In the present case, site inspection was conducted on
19.02.2024, for which a notice is said to be issued by concerned
Tehsildar on 15.02.2024. As per counsel for petitioner said notice
itself amounts to calling of objection as required under Rule 69 of
the Rules of 1955 and thus, sufficient compliance thereof is
already done in the present case. To deal with said arguments, it
is relevant to quote the language of notice dated 15.02.2024
issued by Tehsildar concerned.
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(11 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
“ कार्यालयतहसीलदार ( भूअ ) आऊजिलाफलौदी
/ . ./ . / 251 /2023/1383 15.02.2024
क्रमांक भू अ प्रा डिक्री धारा ए दिनांकः
सूचनार्थनोटिस

माननीयन्यायालयसहायककलक्टरएवंउपखण्डअधिकारीमहोदयआऊके आदेश
/ /2023/285 31.10.2023
क्रमांक कोर्ट दिनांक कीपालनामेंआपश्रीहरूपत्निटीकूराम
जाति जाटनिवासीरिडमलसरकोजरियेनोटिससूचितकि याजाताहैकि दिनांक 19.02.2024
कोराजस्वग्रामखारियाकाखसरानं . 1053/1009 बाबतप्राथमिकडिक्री / धारा 251 एमौका
मुआयनाकि याजायेगा।आपमौकेपरउपस्थि तरहे।आपकीअनुपस्थि ति मेंएकतरफाकार्यवाही
अमलमेंलाईजावेगी।जिसकेआपस्वयंजिम्मेवारहोंगे।
हस्ताक्षरकृषक तहसीलदार ( भू . अ .) आऊ
हस्ताखरनोटिसतामीलकुलिन्दा "
8.1 A bare reading of notice dated 15.02.2024 leaves no manner
of doubt that it was merely an intimation issued by concerned
Tehsildar informing the parties about proposed date of site
inspection. The contents of notice neither disclose an invitation for
filing objections nor indicate that any adjudicatory process was
proposed to be undertaken by the Tehsildar. As already noticed
hereinabove, neither Section 251A of the Act of 1955 nor Rule 69
of the Rules of 1955 contemplates delegation of the power to
invite, consider, or adjudicate objections to any authority other
than the SDO. Even otherwise, no such exercise appears to have
been undertaken by Tehsildar in the present case. Consequently,
the contention advanced on behalf of petitioner that issuance of
notice dated 15.02.2024 by Tehsildar amounted to compliance
with requirement of inviting objections under Rule 69 is wholly
misconceived and contrary to the statutory scheme.
8.2 It has been pleaded by petitioner that private respondents
were present at the time of site inspection and that inspection was
carried out in their presence, though they allegedly refused to sign
inspection report. However, except for such bald assertions, no
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(12 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
material has been placed on record to substantiate the same.
Respondents, on the other hand, have specifically disputed and
denied the said factual averments. In any event, mere presence
during site inspection cannot be equated with compliance of the
statutory requirement of affording an opportunity to file objections
against the inspection report and the proposed grant of way.
9. Record further reveals, and indeed it is not disputed, that
site inspection report was submitted before learned SDO on
27.04.2024. On the very same day, learned SDO proceeded to
pass final order under Section 251A without furnishing a copy of
inspection report to respondents and without affording them any
opportunity to submit objections thereto or to contest the findings
recorded therein. However, instead of inviting objections to said
report, which is a stage subsequent to and distinct from the
conduct of site inspection, learned SDO proceeded to pass the
impugned order on the very same day, without affording the
respondents any effective opportunity of hearing.
9.1 In the considered opinion of this Court, such a course of
action is in clear derogation of the procedure prescribed under
Rule 69 of Rules of 1955. The requirement of inviting objections
after receipt of the inspection report and considering the same
before passing a final order are not empty formalities, but
substantive safeguards intended to secure adherence to the
principles of natural justice. The omission to comply with this
mandatory requirement vitiates the subsequent decision-making
process.
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(13 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
9.2 In view thereof, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion
reached by learned BoR. Order of remand merely directs the
learned SDO to undertake the proceedings afresh after complying
with the procedure prescribed under Rule 69 of Rules of 1955 and
after affording due opportunity of hearing to the affected parties.
Said direction, being in consonance with the statutory mandate
and principles of natural justice, warrants no interference by this
Court.
10. In this regard, reliance placed by learned counsel for
respondents on Rampyari (supra) is well-founded, inasmuch as
Hon’ble High Court, in said judgment, has held that where a site
inspection report is obtained, thereafter, objections are required to
be invited and an effective opportunity of hearing must be
afforded to affected parties. Relevant paragraph is reproduced
herein below:
“12. It is not disputed before this court that in the instant
case, the SDO never inspected the site himself or obtained
the inspection report by an officer not below the rank of
Inspector Land Records as mandated by Rule 69 of the Rules
of 1955, rather, the SDO relied upon the site inspection
report received from Tehsildar, Nohar, which was submitted
by the Halka Patwari to the Land Record Inspector in the
proceeding initiated on the complaint made by the
respondent regarding the construction being raised by the
petitioners herein on their land at Kila No. 21 of Murabba No.
319/379. It is not in dispute that the site inspection report
was prepared by the Halka Patwari in the back of the
petitioners and the petitioners had no occasion to raise
objections against the same as contemplated under Rule 69
of the Rules of 1955. Suffice it to say that while passing the
order, the SDO has not followed the procedure laid down
under Rule 69 of the Rules of 1955. As a matter of fact, in
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(14 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
the instant case, when two alternatives were available
for providing the way to the respondent, it was all the
more necessary for the SDO to obtain the site
inspection report as mandated by Rule 69 of the Rules
of 1955 and thereafter, after inviting the objections
and giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and
making such further enquiry as considered necessary,
the appropriate order could have been passed. In this
view of the matter, the RAA was absolutely justified in
remanding the matter directly to the SDO to conduct the
enquiry as mandated by Rule 69 of the Rules of 1955 and
pass the appropriate order, after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the effected parties.”
10.1 This Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7320/2018;
Legal representatives of Rawata Ram v Board of Revenue &
Ors. reiterated the same. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced
herein below:
“ The procedure which is provided under the law very
clearly stipulates that on such application being
received by the S.D.O., he has to hold the summary
inquiry by inspecting the site himself or getting it
inspected by an officer not below the rank of
Inspector, Land Records and thereafter, he has to
invite objections from the affected person.
Admittedly, in the present case, no such procedure was
followed and merely on the basis of a certified Nazri Naksha
issued by the Halka Patwari, the application preferred by the
respondents has been allowed. The appellate authority as
well as revisional authority while rejecting the appeal and
revision, have also not taken into account the argument
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the due
inquiry/inspection was not conducted by the S.D.O. or by any
competent authority as mandated under Section 251A and
269 of the Act and Rules of 1955. Therefore, the orders
passed by S.D.O., Pilibanga, the appellate authority and the
revisional authority are not sustainable.”
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(15 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
11. Moreover, in considered opinion of this Court, objections /
replies which are filed in response to the initial application under
Section 251A are distinct from objections which are invited to the
site-inspection report. It is incumbent upon SDO to consider both
sets of material independently, to record reasons for accepting or
rejecting particular objections, and to ensure that decision is
founded upon a reasoned application of dual tests of absolute
necessity and absence of alternative access. Failure to follow this
sequential procedure which by implication involves observance of
principles of natural justice would render the exercise of power
under Section 251A vulnerable to judicial scrutiny.
11.1 This Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13159/2024;
Rameshwari Devi v Board of Revenue & Ors. reaffirmed that
reply to application filed under Section 251A is separate from
objections to site inspection report under Rule 69. Relevant
paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
“10. According to this Court, site inspection report is not
conclusive and is a corroborative piece of evidence and
application filed under section 251-A of the Act is required to
be decided on the basis of rival contention and evidence.
11. Indisputably, the petitioner has filed his objection in
relation to application filed by the respondents under section
251-A of the Act. The petitioner is only entitled to file
objection qua the report so also in relation to the
application under section 251-A of the Act, which he
has done .”
12. Moreover, in considered opinion of this Court, submission
advanced by petitioner that Rule 69 merely contemplates inviting
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(16 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
objections from affected persons, without requiring consideration
or adjudication thereof, is bereft of merit. Such an interpretation
would reduce the statutory opportunity of hearing to a mere
empty formality and render entire exercise meaningless. Once the
statute mandates inviting objections from affected persons, it
necessarily implies an obligation to record the same and consider
such objections before arriving at a final decision. Any contrary
interpretation would defeat the very purpose underlying the
principles of natural justice and would render the safeguard
provided under Section 251A and Rule 69 illusory in nature.
12.1 Hon’ble Apex Court in Nareshbhai Bhagubhai v. Union of
India, (2019) 15 SCC 1 reiterated the same. Relevant paragraph
is reproduced herein below:
“20. The limited right given to a landowner/interested
person to file objections, and be granted a personal
hearing under Section 20-D cannot be reduced to an
empty formality, or a mere eyewash by the competent
authority. The competent authority was duty-bound to
consider the objections raised by the appellants, and
pass a reasoned order, which should reflect
application of mind to the objections raised by the
landowners. In the present case, there has been a
complete dereliction of duty by the competent authority in
passing a reasoned order on the objections raised by the
appellants.”
13. Further, learned counsel for petitioner contended that
learned BoR exceeded limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction
under the Act of 1955 by re-evaluating / reappreciating the
evidence on record and interfering with concurrent findings of
learned SDO and learned RAA. However, this Court finds that such
contention is not sustainable.
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(17 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
13.1 Learned BOR derives its revisional power from Section 230 of
Act of 1955. The same is reproduced herein below:
“ Section – 230 : Power of the Board to call for cases —
The Board may call for the record of any case decided by
any subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies either
to the Board or to a civil court under section 239 and if such
court appears —
(a) to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(b) to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or
with material irregularity .
Board may pass such orders in the case as thinks fit.”
13.2 One of the contingencies contemplated under Section 230 is
where the subordinate Court has acted illegally or with material
irregularity while exercising its jurisdiction. The expression
“material irregularity” is wide enough to include cases where
mandatory procedural requirements prescribed under the statute
are ignored or bypassed. Failure to adhere to procedural
safeguards strikes at the very fairness of adjudicatory process and
renders exercise of jurisdiction legally infirm.
13.3 Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhudev Mallick v. Ranajit Ghoshal,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 360 examined the scope of revisional
jurisdiction and jurisdictional errors under Section 115 CPC, which
is pari materia to Section 230 of the Act of 1955. Relevant
paragraph is reproduced herein below:
“55. If, therefore, an error, be it an error of fact or of law, is
such that the erroneous decision has resulted in the
subordinate Court or tribunal exercising jurisdiction, not
vested in it by law, or in its having failed to exercise
jurisdiction, vested in it by law, that will come within the
scope of Section 115 of the Code or, for the matter of that, of
Article 227 of the Constitution, as the case may be. This error
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(18 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
may have resulted from a violation of rules of natural justice,
by taking into consideration matters which are extraneous and
irrelevant, or by substituting judicial consideration by bias,
based on suspicion, arising from those extraneous matters or
from any other cause whatsoever but if it has affected the
assumption or exercise of jurisdiction, as envisaged above, it
will be a jurisdictional error for purposes of the above Article.
56. There is no exhaustive list of jurisdictional errors,
but case law has identified such an error exists when a
decision-maker has:
• identified a wrong issue;
• asked a wrong question;
• ignored relevant material;
• relied on irrelevant material;
• failed to observe a requirement of procedural
fairness ;
• made a decision involving fraud;
• made a decision in bad faith;
• made a decision without evidence;
• applied a policy inflexibly.”
13.4 In the present case, learned SDO admittedly failed to comply
with mandatory requirement of inviting objections under Rule 69.
Such omission deprived the affected parties of an effective
opportunity of hearing and participation in the proceedings. The
said lapse not only vitiates the procedure adopted by learned
SDO, but also amounts to violation of principles of natural justice,
particularly the rule of audi alteram partem . Consequently,
proceedings before learned SDO stood vitiated on account of
material irregularity and illegal exercise of jurisdiction, thereby
justifying interference of learned BoR in its revisional jurisdiction
under Section 230 of Act of 1955.
13.5 In the considered opinion of this Court, although Section
251A of the Act of 1955 contemplates only a summary inquiry,
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)

(19 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:26951] [CW-16603/2025]
serious consequences flowing from such proceedings cannot be
overlooked. Under Section 251A(2), tenancy rights of a person
whose land is affected by creation of a new way or widening of an
existing way stand extinguished, and the land is recorded as
“rasta” in the revenue records. Therefore, where the proceedings
result in deprivation of tenancy rights and a permanent change in
the nature of land, compliance with the principles of natural
justice is not a mere procedural formality, but an indispensable
requirement.
14. As an upshot of above discussion, this Court finds no
jurisdictional error, legal infirmity, or error apparent on the face of
the record in impugned order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure-13)
passed by learned BOR. Accordingly, present writ petition, being
devoid of merit, is hereby, dismissed and order dated 19.08.2025
(Annexure-13) is upheld.
15. Matter is remanded back to learned SDO, who shall
reconsider application filed under Section 251A afresh and ensure
due compliance with the mandate of Rule 69 of Rules of 1955
while adjudicating the matter.
16. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
23-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 11/06/2026 at 01:39:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/06/2026 at 12:31:41 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)