1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4484/2010 Sushil Kumar vs Capricoran & Ors. Date of Order: 6.5.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. Madan Lal Purohit ] Mr.Rajesh Choudhary ], for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The dispute raised by the petitioner is about his claim of right of way and proceedings under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 were initiated wherein ultimately the Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition vide order dated 26.4.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Division Bench judgment delivered in the case of Kanhaiyalal vs Board of Revenue & Ors reported in RRD 1989 743 wherein also the the matter under consideration was under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 wherein it has been held that the Gram Panchayat has jurisdiction to deal with such application only upto 45 days and thereafter Gram Panchayat ceases to have jurisdiction and only Tehsildar can decide the application. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in the facts situation as it is available in the present case, the matter should have been remanded to the lowest authority in stead of deciding by the revenue board itself. 2 It is admitted position that the proceedings under Section 251 is summary proceeding and even after decision on proceedings under Section 251, the aggrieved party has right to file the regular suit wherein only final decision can be obtained. Therefore, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition because of the reason that the proper remedy is by suit where disputed questions of facts can be determined as well as interim order can be obtained in the regularly instituted suit. Once the matter has been decided by the Board of Revenue in such summary procedure then there is no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Board of Revenue because of the further reason that the law itself says that proceedings under Section 251 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act is only summary proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy in accordance with law. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-