- (1.)These two applications in revision, one filed by Narayan S/o Ramkanwar Chamar and the other filed by Jairam and others, are directed against an appellate order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur, dated 31.5.1956 by which an order of the Tehsildar Chaksu, dated 25.2.1956, was affirmed with some modifications in a case relating to a right of way which was claimed by Narain through the fields of Jairam and others under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). It will be convenient to dispose of both these applications by the same order as they arise out of the same case and involve a question of law which turns up on the scope and interpretation of sec 251 of the said Act.
(2.)We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also examined the record. The material facts of the case are that Narayan submitted an application to the Tehsil Panchayat Chaksu alleging that he was prevented by the non -applicants from having access to his fields situated in village Titarya after going along the path which ran through their fields and which he had been using previously in order to have access to his fields. After holding an enquiry into the matter the Panchayat realised that it was not competent to accede to the request of the applicant. It sent the file to the Tehsildar Chaksu on 19.12.1955. On 25.2.1956 the Tehsildar who had inspected the spot earlier directed the Girdawar Halqa to proceed to the spot and to point out to the applicant the path through fields Nos. 385, 357, 323, 324, 316, 317 and 318. He required the non -applicants to furnish bonds in the amount of Rs 51/ -each that they would not prevent the applicant from going along that path in order to have access to his fields. The non -applicants aggrieved by the order of the learned Tehsildar went up in appeal against it to the learned Additional Collector, Jaipur. The learned Additional Collector when into the matter and came to the conclusion that Narayana, respondent, was justified in asserting his right to the use of the path which ran through the fields of the appellants. This path was shown in settlement papers and the appellants were not justified in preventing the respondent from using it. The learned Additional Collector however added a rider to the order of the learned Tehsildar which was to the effect that the applicant while driving his cattle through these fields should take steps to ensure that they did not do any damage to the standing crops. He was required to the extent to which it was possible to place a cover on their mouths It was also pointed out that the respondent would not drive a cart over the path so long as the crop was standing in those fields. To this extent the order of the learned Tehsildar was modified and the appeal preferred by the non -applicants was partially accepted As the order of the learned Additional Collector was considered by both the parties as prejudicial to their rights they have come up in revision to the Board impugning its legality and propriety on different grounds.
(3.)It was contended on behalf of Jairam and others that the learned Tehsildar had clearly misconstrued the provisions of sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and had committed a material irregularity in the exercise of a jurisdiction which was vested in him.