Case Note & Summary
Background — The dispute arose from an application filed by a khatedar tenant under Section 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 seeking a 30-foot wide way through the khatedari land of the respondents to access her land from the government road. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aau allowed the application on 27.02.2024 after site inspection and being satisfied about absolute necessity and absence of alternative access. The respondents' appeal under Section 225 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur was dismissed on 18.06.2024. However, the Board of Revenue, Ajmer allowed their revision on 19.08.2025, set aside both orders, and remanded the matter to the SDO for fresh consideration citing non-compliance with Rule 69 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 read with Section 251A. Facts — The petitioner claimed that the SDO had issued notice to respondents, site inspection was conducted on 19.02.2024 in their presence though they refused to sign, and the inspection report was submitted on 27.02.2024. The SDO passed the order granting the way on the same day without inviting objections specifically to the inspection report. The respondents contended that the report falsely recorded their presence and that they were denied an effective opportunity to controvert it. The Tehsildar had issued notice on 15.02.2024 for site inspection. Legal Issues — The primary issues were whether Rule 69 requires the SDO to invite objections to the site inspection report and afford a hearing before deciding; whether the SDO substantially complied with the rule; and whether the Board of Revenue exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence. Arguments — Petitioner argued that Rule 69 only requires inviting objections generally, which was done via notice for site inspection, and that the SDO considered the reply to the application; thus substantial compliance. Respondents argued that the mandatory procedural safeguard of inviting objections to the inspection report and giving opportunity to controvert was violated because the SDO acted on the same day the report was received, violating natural justice; they relied on Rampyari v. Board of Revenue, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 178. Court's Analysis — The High Court examined the scheme of Section 251A and Rule 69. It held that Section 251A confers a substantive right and vests jurisdiction in the SDO to conduct summary inquiry. Rule 69 prescribes the procedural framework, requiring the SDO to either inspect or get the site inspected by an officer not below the rank of Inspector Land Records, invite objections from affected persons, and after affording opportunity of being heard and further enquiry, decide the application within 90 days. The Court noted that both provisions designate the SDO as the competent authority and do not permit delegation of adjudicatory powers. The Court observed that the SDO had passed the impugned order on the very day the inspection report was received, without inviting objections to the report or providing an effective opportunity to the respondents. The available text ends at that point; the final operative decision is not included in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Grant of Way Through Another Khatedar's Holding - Section 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - The provision confers a substantive right on a khatedar tenant to seek a way through another khatedar's holding upon satisfying conditions of absolute necessity and absence of alternative means of access, and vests jurisdiction in the Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct a summary inquiry and pass orders on payment of compensation. The Court held that a plain reading of Section 251A makes this evident and that the Sub-Divisional Officer is the designated competent authority. (Paras 6.2-6.3) B) Administrative Law - Procedural Compliance - Rule 69 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 - Rule 69 supplements Section 251A by prescribing the procedural framework requiring the Sub-Divisional Officer to either inspect or get inspected the site and invite objections from affected persons, and after affording opportunity of being heard and making further enquiry, decide the application within 90 days. The Court held that Rule 69 does not authorise delegation of adjudicatory powers except limited site inspection by an officer not below the rank of Inspector Land Records. (Paras 6.4-6.6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Board of Revenue correctly held that the Sub-Divisional Officer violated Rule 69 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 read with Section 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 by not inviting objections to the site inspection report and not providing effective opportunity of hearing before granting a way; and whether the Board of Revenue exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in reappreciating evidence.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided text (the judgment excerpt ends before final operative order).
Law Points
- Section 251A of Rajasthan Tenancy Act
- 1955 confers a substantive right to seek a way through another khatedar's holding
- Rule 69 of Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules
- 1955 prescribes procedural framework including inviting objections and affording hearing
- Sub-Divisional Officer is the designated competent authority
- no delegation of adjudicatory powers
- site inspection may be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Inspector Land Records
- summary inquiry required
- absolute necessity and absence of alternative access are preconditions.
