Compliance with Rule 69 Mandatory: SDO Must Invite Objections Post-Site Inspection Before Granting Way under Section 251A.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the issuance of a notice for the conduct of a site inspection by the Tehsildar constitutes sufficient compliance with the requirement to "invite objections" under Rule 69

The court held

The Court held that inviting objections under Rule 69 is a substantive safeguard, not an empty formality, and the SDO's failure to do so after receiving the inspection report vitiated the proceedings

It also directed

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Board of Revenue's order of remand. The matter was remanded to the SDO, Aau, to reconsider the application afresh by following the mandate of Rule 69 and providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the affected parties

01Facts

The petitioner filed an application under Section 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, seeking a 30-foot wide permanent way through the respondents' khatedari land in Khasra No. 1053/1009

¶ 2

On 27.02.2024, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Aau, allowed the application on the same day the Tehsildar submitted a site inspection report, which claimed the respondents were present but refused to sign

¶ 2.1, 6

The Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) upheld this order

¶ 2.2

However, the Board of Revenue (BoR) set aside these orders and remanded the matter, finding that Rule 69 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955, regarding the invitation of objections to the inspection report, was not followed

¶ 2.3

The petitioner challenged the BoR’s remand order in the High Court

¶ 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the issuance of a notice for the conduct of a site inspection by the Tehsildar constitutes sufficient compliance with the requirement to "invite objections" under Rule 69

¶ 6.1, 8.1

ii.2. Whether the SDO’s failure to invite objections specifically against the site inspection report before passing a final order violates the principles of natural justice and statutory procedure

¶ 9, 11

iii.3. Whether the Board of Revenue exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 230 of the Act by interfering with concurrent findings of fact

¶ 3.3, 13

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which grants the SDO power to allow a new way based on "absolute necessity" and absence of alternative access after a "summary inquiry"

¶ 6.2

Rule 69 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955, which mandates that the SDO must either inspect the site or get it inspected and then "invite objections from the affected persons" and afford an "opportunity of being heard"

¶ 6.2

The court relied on Rampyari v. Board of Revenue (2019) and LRs of Rawata Ram v. BoR, establishing that statutory procedures for site inspection reports are mandatory

¶ 10, 10.1

The principle from Nareshbhai Bhagubhai v. Union of India (2019) that the right to file objections cannot be reduced to an empty formality

¶ 12.1

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 115

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that Section 251A and Rule 69 create a mandatory sequential procedure: application, site inspection, invitation of objections to the report, and then a reasoned decision

¶ 7.1-7.3

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that a notice of the intent to inspect site (issued by the Tehsildar) satisfied Rule 69, noting that the Tehsildar cannot delegate the SDO's adjudicatory duty to invite and consider objections

¶ 8.1

Because the SDO passed the final order on the very day the report was received without sharing it with the respondents or seeking their specific objections to its findings, the procedure was a "material irregularity"

¶ 9, 13.2

The Court emphasized that since Section 251A(2) results in the permanent extinguishment of tenancy rights (as the land becomes a "rasta"), strict adherence to natural justice is indispensable

¶ 13.5

05Holding

The Court held that inviting objections under Rule 69 is a substantive safeguard, not an empty formality, and the SDO's failure to do so after receiving the inspection report vitiated the proceedings

¶ 12, 13.4

¶ 14, 15

LawLens.Rajasthan High Court

Original Court PDF