1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5242/2004 (Mohan Lal & Anr.Vs.The Board of Revenue & Ors.) Date of Order :- 27.07.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Bhanwar Bagri, for the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.04.2004 passed by the Board of Revenue ('the Board', for short) whereby the learned Board has quashed and set aside the order dated 17.06.2002 passed by the District Collector, Sawaimadhopur and the order dated 12.06.2001 passed by the Tehsildar, Boli. In a nutshell the facts of the case are that on 06.07.2000 the petitioners submitted an application to the Gram Panchayat, Kushalpura requesting that the petitioners' field, house and well are situated in Khasra No.4, village Medarkhurd. For approaching the said well & field, there was a dirt road passing through the fields of the respondents. But the respondents have encroached upon the said road and raised sand wall upon it. Thus, they have obstructed the said public way. Therefore, the petitioners were denied an access to their fields. Therefore, a prayer was made to re-open the said road. The Gram Panchayat inspected the site and prepared a site plan on 2 10.07.2000. Since the Gram Panchayat did not take any decision on the said application within 45 days, therefore, petitioners submitted an application to the Tehsildar, Boli under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act ('the Act', for short). Notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents submitted their reply. Vide order dated 12.06.2001, the Tehsildar allowed the application and ordered that since the respondents have constructed a boundary wall made of mud, therefore, they were directed to provide a road parallel to the boundary wall so that petitioners may take their vehicle etc. from that way and if the said way is not provided then the boundary wall would be demolished. The respondents filed an appeal before the District Collector, Sawaimadhopur against order dated 12.06.2001. Simultaneously the respondents also filed a revenue suit against the petitioners before the ACM, Sawaimadhopur. In that suit, on 24.07.2001 a respondent, namely Kalyan, filed a compromise deed, in which he fully agreed with the Tehsildar's order dated 12.06.2001. During the pendency of the appeal, the said compromise was placed on record. Subsequently, vide order dated 17.06.2002, the learned District Collector upheld the order of the Tehsildar and dismissed the appeal. Against the order dated 17.06.2002, the other respondents filed a revision 3 petition before the learned Board. The learned Board vide its order dated 12.04.2004 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 12.06.2001 passed by the Tehsildar and the order dated 17.06.2002 passed by the District Collector. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Bhanwar Bagri, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the revision jurisdiction is a limited one. Therefore, the Board could not have re-opened the entire case. The Board cannot possibly re-appreciate the evidence which was placed before the Tehsildar as well as before the District Collector. Secondly, there was ample evidence to prove the fact that a road existed which was used by the petitioners to reach their fields. However, subsequently the respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 had obstructed the said road by constructing the mud boundary wall. Thus, the respondents had prevented the petitioners from reaching their fields. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. It is, indeed, true that the revision jurisdiction is more narrow then the appellate jurisdiction. Under the revision jurisdiction, the Board is merely concerned to see whether a 4 jurisdiction, vested in the Tehsildar and the District Collector, has been exercised or not, or whether the authority had travelled beyond its jurisdiction, or if certain evidence have been read, which could not have been read, or certain evidence which was available on record, has been ignored, or whether a perversity is writ large on the face of the record or not. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Board has dealt with both the impugned orders separately. While dealing with the Tehsildar's order, the learned Board has noticed the fact that on 12.10.2000, the Patwari had submitted a site inspection report wherein he had clearly stated that there was no road which existed at the site, and none was shown in the revenue records. Instead, there was boundary wall made out of mud which was arising up to 6-7 feet surrounding the field which belonged to the present respondents. According to the Board, despite the fact that the Patwari's report was available, the Tehsildar totally ignored the said piece of evidence and directed that the road be re- opened. The learned Board, thus, concluded that since no previous road existed, the jurisdiction under Section 251 of the Act could not even be exercised. Therefore, according to the learned Board, the Tehsildar had over-stepped his jurisdiction. Secondly, the Tehsildar had ignored a piece of evidence which 5 was readily available in the record. For these reasons, the Board had quashed and set aside his order. As far as the order of the District Collector is concerned, the Board has recorded that the Collector had called for the report of the Tehsildar. Although the said report had not been submitted, but, instead of waiting for the report to be placed, the Collector passed his order in hot- haste. The said report prepared by the Tehsildar was subsequently submitted. Even according to the said report, there was no road which existed. In fact, there was an old boundary wall that existed at the site. Moreover, the learned Board has noticed the fact that the Collector had passed his order only on the basis of a compromise that was reached between the present petitioners and one Mohan Lal. However, no compromise was entered between the present petitioners and the other revisionists. Thus, according to the learned Board, the Collector could not have passed his order on the basis of a compromise which was entered between the present petitioners and one of the revisionist. Therefore, the Board was of the opinion that perversity in the order is writ large. Since the Board has quashed and set aside the order of the Tehsildar on the basis of his having over-stepped his jurisdiction, the Board could 6 certainly have invoked its revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, once the Board has concluded that there was a perversity in the order of the Collector, again the Board could have struck down the order in its revisional jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ petition, it is hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki