Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Pooja vs Rajaram (2026:Rj-Jd:18656) on 21 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:18656]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6942/2025
1. Pooja D/o Devanand, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Satjanda,
Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar.
2. Dheeraj S/o Devanand, Aged About 18 Years, R/o
Satjanda, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar.
3. Draupadi W/o Devanand, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Satjanda, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar.
4. Nihalchand S/o Bhajanlal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o
Satjanda, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar.
5. Vishnu S/o Bhajanlal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Satjanda,
Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar.
6. Mahaveer S/o Bhajanlal, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 35 Np,
Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajaram S/o Sohanlal, R/o 35 Np, Tehsil Raisinghnagar,
District - Sriganganagar.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Raisinghnagar,
District - Sriganganagar.
3. Rajesh Kumar S/o Krishanlal, R/o 35 Np, Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar.
4. Shanti Devi W/o Shivcharan, R/o 35 Np, Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar.
5. Nar Singh S/o Shriram, R/o 35 Np, Tehsil Raisinghnagar,
District - Sriganganagar.
6. Rajendra Kumar S/o Shriram, R/o 35 Np, Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar.
7. Shravan Kumar S/o Shriram, R/o 35 Np, Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar.
8. Satpal S/o Shriram, R/o 35 Np, Tehsil Raisinghnagar,
District - Sriganganagar.
9. Surendra Kumar S/o Shriram, R/o 35 Np, Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar.
10. Parmeshwari W/o Shriram, R/o 35 Np, Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar.
11. Silochana D/o Shriram, R/o 18 Np Dhani, Tehsil
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:23:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 01:17:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18656] (2 of 10) [CW-6942/2025]
Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar.
12. Draupadi D/o Shriram W/o Hansraj, R/o 54 Lnp, Tehsil
Padampur, District - Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Venkat Poonia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Jain.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
21/04/2026
1. Present writ petition is filed with following prayers:
“A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction,
impugned judgment dated 21.02.2025
(Annexure P-08) passed by the Ld. Board of
Revenue, Ajmer in ‘Revision/T.A./08/2023/Sri
Ganganagar (Rajaram v/s Pooja and Ors.)’ may
kindly be quashed and set aside;
B. Any other appropriate writ, order or
direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case may kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner; and/or
C. Writ petition filed by the Petitioner may
kindly be allowed with costs.”
2. While elucidating facts of the present case, learned counsel
for petitioners states that petitioners are joint khatedars of portion
of Murabba No. 24 admeasuring 0.506 hectare and also of
Murabba No. 22 situated in Village 35 NP, Tehsil Raisinghnagar,
District Sri Ganganagar. Respondent no. 1 who is the owner of
Murabba No. 23 (Kila No. 1/1 to 25/2) admeasuring 6.325 hectare
situated in same village filed an application under Section 251-A of
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“Act of 1955”) before learned Sub-
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:23:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 01:17:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18656] (3 of 10) [CW-6942/2025]
Divisional officer, Raisinghnagar (“SDO”) registered as Case No.
44/2021 to get an access of new way to his land through Kila No.
1 to 5 of Murabba No. 24 including portion of petitioner’s land of
Kila no. 1 and 2.
2.1 However, during the pendency of aforesaid dispute between
petitioner and respondent no. 1, co-owners of adjacent Murabba
No. 22 also filed an application under Section 251-A of Act of 1955
before learned SDO, registered as Case No. 18/2022;
Radheshyam and Ors. v Rajaram for grant of way through Kila
Nos. 1 to 5 of Murabba No. 23 and Kila Nos. 3 to 5 of Murabba
No. 24.
Subsequently, in their reply, the petitioners requested the
learned SDO to consolidate both cases, i.e., Case No. 44/2021 and
Case No. 18/2022, on the ground that joint adjudication would
safeguard the interests of all khatedars of the land in question, as
well as those of the adjoining landholders.
2.2 However, learned SDO, vide order dated 18.08.2022
(Annexure P-4), did not consider petitioner’s prayer for
consolidation / clubbing of cases and allowed respondent No. 1’s
application, thereby sanctioning access to a new way to Murabba
No. 23 through Kila Nos. 1 to 5 of Murabba No. 24 on the ground
of absolute necessity under Section 251-A, holding that no other
shorter or nearer alternative route was available.
2.3 Aggrieved by the order dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure P-4)
petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 225 of Act of 1955
before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:23:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 01:17:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18656] (4 of 10) [CW-6942/2025]
(“RAA”) which was allowed vide order dated 27.12.2022
(Annexure P-7).
Learned RAA held that, since multiple land disputes were
pending between the parties, learned SDO ought to have
consolidated Case No. 44/2021 and Case No. 18/2022 so as to
explore possibility of other ways before arriving at a decision.
Accordingly, RAA remanded the matter to SDO with a direction
that the present dispute between petitioner and respondent No. 1
be tagged with pending Case No. 18/2022, and thereafter
adjudicate the dispute in accordance with law.
2.4 Subsequently, respondent No. 1 challenged said remand
order dated 27.12.2022 by way of filing a revision petition before
learned Board of Revenue (“BOR”). Learned BOR, vide order dated
21.02.2025 (Annexure P-8), allowed the said revision petition on
the ground that it is a settled principle of law that two cases can
be heard jointly only when the decision in one case would
adversely affect the other. In the present case, reliefs claimed in
Case No. 44/2021 and Case No. 18/2022 were not contradictory.
Therefore, RAA erred in remanding the matter to SDO.
Accordingly, learned BOR set aside the order dated
27.12.2022 passed by RAA and affirmed the order dated
18.08.2022 passed by learned SDO. Hence, present appeal has
been filed challenging the order passed by learned BOR.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that BOR erred in
setting aside the order passed by RAA (Annexure P-7), as it failed
to consider that one of the main prayers in Case No. 18/2022
pertains to grant of access to Murabba No. 22 through part of land
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:23:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 01:17:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18656] (5 of 10) [CW-6942/2025]
of both Murabba Nos. 24 and 23. Instead, BOR incorrectly
observed that the prayer in Case No. 18/2022 was confined only
to access through Murabba No. 24. It was further contended that,
by doing so, petitioner’s right to a holistic and effective
adjudication of disputes between the parties has been curtailed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that
BOR rightly set aside the order dated 27.12.2022 as other
cultivators of Chak 35 NP have also filed applications under
Section 251-A seeking sanction of a way their respective lands. It
was submitted that it gives rise to separate and distinct causes of
action, therefore both cases cannot be consolidated / clubbed
together.
4.1 Learned counsel contended that present writ petition
involves several disputed questions of fact which cannot be
adjudicated by this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Moreover, order passed by learned BOR dated 21.02.2025
(Annexure P-8) is well reasoned and once a finding has been
recorded by two revenue courts, the same warrants no
interference from this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material
available on record.
6. Upon perusal of the material available on record, particularly
the diagrammatic chart (Annexure P-1) this Court finds that
respondent No.1 in Case No.44/2021 sought access of way
specifically through Kila Nos. 1 to 5 of Murabba No.24, out of
which Kila No. 1 and 2 belongs to Petitioner, on the ground of
absolute necessity. In contrast, the application in Case
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:23:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 01:17:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18656] (6 of 10) [CW-6942/2025]
No.18/2022 filed by co-owners of Murabba No.22 sought access
through a broader stretch, namely Kila Nos. 3 to 5 of Murabba
No.24 and also involved passage through Kila Nos. 1 to 5 of
Murabba No.23. Notably, as evident from reply to writ petion filed
by respondent no. 1, owners of Kila No. 3,4 and 5 of Murabba No.
24 have already consented for grant of way through their land to
respondent’s Murabba No. 23. However, with regards to Case No.
18/2022, no such consent has been given. Therefore, this Court
finds that by its very nature, scope and extent of the reliefs
claimed in both proceedings is not identical, and they are
independent claims based on separate requirements of different
khatedars.
6.1 It is well settled that consolidation of proceedings is ordered
only when adjudication in one case is substantially dependent
upon the outcome of the other, or when separate adjudication may
result in conflicting findings on common issues of fact or law. The
power to club matters is discretionary and is exercised to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent finding.
6.2 This Hon’ble High Court in Ganeshdas v. Ramesh
Chandra, 2002 SCC OnLine Raj 48 held for consolidation of
suits, parties must be identical, rights to be determined must also
be identical and it must be shown by the party seeking
consolidation that prejudice will be caused if proceedings are not
consolidated. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
“16.********This Court after placing reliance upon its earlier
judgment in Pratap Singh v. Madan Lal (12), held that for
consolidation of suits certain conditions have to be fulfilled
including that the parties must be identical and the rights to(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:23:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 01:17:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18656] (7 of 10) [CW-6942/2025]be determined must also be identical and in case both the
conditions are not fulfilled, consolidation is not permissible.
17. If the instant cases are examined in the light of the
above settled legal proposition, it is evident that parties
therein are not the same, documents on the basis of which
suits are to be decided are not the same; they have been
executed on different dates; it is not the case where there is
a possibility of having conflicting judgments into two identical
suits; nor it has been shown how the order of not
consolidating all the suits has prejudiced the cause of the
applicant; plaintiffs evidence has already stood concluded in
all the suits; inconvenience has already been caused to the
respective plaintiffs as expenses has already been incurred
by them separately; the applicants did not consider it proper
to file the applications for consolidation at the initial stage for
the reasons best known to them; the applications have been
filed at a belated stage only to facilitate him to lead evidence
in all the suits simultaneously. Such a course is not
permissible. Applicant has no bonafide intention as he failed
to show any justification in moving the application in the
interest of all the parties concerned as the application has
been filed at a belated stage.”
6.3 Moreover, this Hon’ble High Court in Anurag & Co. v. Addl.
Dist. Judge, 2006 SCC OnLine Raj 4 set out certain relevant
conditions/circumstances for consolidation of suits. Relevant
paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
“28. The upshot of aforesaid discussion of judgment is that
some of the relevant circumstances for consolidating the civil
suits are as follows:–
(i) The parties are substantially the same.
(ii) Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of
the issues arising for decision in two suits.
(iii) Common evidence is to be led, if parties are substantially
the same, if only one party is common then burden of proof
of facts in issue will be on different person and no common
evidence can be led.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:23:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 01:17:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18656] (8 of 10) [CW-6942/2025]
(iv) The consolidation in the aforesaid circumstances will
fulfill the object of consolidation. Any other circumstances
may be relevant then also the object of consolidation will be
decisive for passing appropriate order.
29. Keeping in view the aforesaid relevant circumstances and
object of consolidation, there is no substantial similarity
between the parties and issues involved as present suits are
between different parties wherein cause of actions arose on
different dates, burden of proof is on different person and
further the consent given by the respondent-plaintiff for
simultaneous hearing of the four civil suits pending before
the same Court, which will totally eliminate the chances of
conflicting judgments. I am of the further view that no other
relevant circumstances exist for consolidation of civil suits
and non consolidation will not defeat aforesaid object.
30. The Trial Court has not committed any error in not
consolidating the civil suits. The Trial Court has acted within
its parameters.”
6.4 In the present case, the application filed by respondent No.1
was confined to a limited portion of Murabba No.24 and was based
on the plea that no shorter or nearer alternative access was
available to reach Murabba No.23. The application in Case
No.18/2022, on the other hand, was instituted by different
applicants seeking passage to Murabba No.22 through a larger
portion of land. The decision in one matter does not necessarily
determine or prejudice the adjudication in the other, as each claim
is required to be tested independently on parameters laid down
under Section 251-A of Act of 1955.
6.5 This Court finds that learned RAA, while remanding the
matter, proceeded on the premise that multiple disputes between
parties necessitated consolidation. However, mere pendency of
more than one application relating to adjoining lands does not ipso
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:23:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 01:17:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18656] (9 of 10) [CW-6942/2025]
facto require clubbing of proceedings. Each application under
Section 251-A is to be examined on its own merits, keeping in
view the necessity and availability of shortest or nearest route.
Moreover, no finding has been recorded, apart from the issue of
consolidation of cases that the conclusion drawn by learned SDO
regarding absolute necessity under Section 251-A is erroneous.
Learned BOR, therefore, rightly set aside the order dated
27.12.2022 passed by RAA and affirmed the order dated
18.08.2022 passed by learned SDO and held that two cases arose
from separate causes of action and that joint adjudication was not
necessary.
Once specific finding regarding necessity and approved way
being shortest is recorded by SDO and affirmed up to BOR, no
interference in such factual finding is warranted, particularly when
petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent on face of
record.
7. It is a trite law that power of superintendence vested in High
Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must be
exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases to keep
subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their
authority. The High Court does not assume the role of an appellate
forum, re-appreciating evidence or substituting its view for that of
the inferior court, but confines interference to instances of patent
perversity, grave dereliction of duty, and flagrant abuse of
fundamental principles of law or justice, or jurisdictional overreach
occasioning manifest injustice. Burdening this judgment with
copious quotes from a catena of authoritative precedents such as
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:23:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 01:17:29 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18656] (10 of 10) [CW-6942/2025]
Waryam Singh v. Amarnath (1954) 1 SCC 51, Shalini
Shyamsunder Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8
SCC 329, Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4
SCC 181 would be futile, as the settled jurisprudential position is
beyond cavil.
8. In view of the aforesaid, no error, much less an error
apparent on the face of record, is found in the impugned order;
therefore order passed by learned BOR warrants no interference
by this Court in its writ jurisdiction and the same is upheld.
Consequently, present writ petition, being bereft of merit, is
hereby dismissed.
9. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
4-sumer-vallabhi/-
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:23:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 01:17:29 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link
