Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakshminarayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:66953
1 WP-1300-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 11 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1300 of 2025
LAKSHMINARAYAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jagat Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Suyash Thakur - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8.
ORDER
Initially, the present petition was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2025 against which, a writ appeal being W.A.No.488 of 2025 was preferred, which was disposed off vide order dated 29.10.2025 and the matter was remanded back for reconsideration on merits.
2. Challenge in the present petition is made to an order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Sehore in Revision setting aside the orders passed by the Naib Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a cultivator and has the right to have route for access to his fields bearing survey number 4/1/3-27 area being 4.917 hectares situated at village Bhairupur Tehsil Shyampur District Sehore. The petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 8 and one Munshi Lal are close relatives as they were having a common ancestor Gangaram. They have inherited their respective fields from Gangaram who during his lifetime had partitioned his fields amongst them. The petitioner's route for access to his fields passes through a Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 16-12-2025 18:10:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:66953 2 WP-1300-2025 Medh (mud-bound) of the fields of respondent Nos.5 to 8, which was used by the petitioner for going to his fields uninterruptedly for several decades. It is recently when respondent Nos.5 to 8 started disputing the route of the petitioner for access to his fields, he was constrained to file an application under Section 131 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before Naib Tehsildar for determination. After registering the case, Naib Tehsildar issued notices to the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and received their reply. He personally inspected the fields in question and also called for a report from the Patwari. There is no denial by the respondent Nos.5 to 8 regarding inheritance of the property after partition. The main objection taken by them was that the petitioner has constructed a house in his field, therefore, he intends to use the route by making a pakka road. It is also pointed out that the Government road exists at a distance of 150-200 feet from the house of the petitioner, which is an alternative route for him. The Naib Tehsildar after hearing the parties and examining the records, has clearly observed that the route of the petitioner to his fields for cultivation passes through 7 feet kaccha road by medh of the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and no other alternative route was available to him. He has relied upon a Panchnama prepared by the Patwari in presence of the witnesses and an order dated 18-04-2024 was passed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos.5 to 8 preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer. The said appeal was dismissed upholding the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 08.08.2024. Against which, they preferred a Revision before the Additional Collector, which was registered as 0070/Revision/2024-25 and the Additional Collector vide impugned order has allowed the revision setting aside the orders passed by the Naib Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer and directing the Naib Tehsildar to pass a fresh order after Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 16-12-2025 18:10:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:66953 3 WP-1300-2025 hearing the parties concerned.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Additional Collector had misread the provisions of Section 131(1) of the MPLRC. It provides for rights of way and other private easements. The Additional Collector has failed to see that the Naib Tehsildar had personally inspected the spot and thereafter obtained a report from the Patwari. The Panchanama report, spot map and the statements of the parties were also recorded and thereafter the Naib Tehsildar had passed an order. The Additional Collector without considering the aforesaid aspect has passed the impugned order, which is per se illegal. Therefore, this petition is filed.
5. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the respondent Nos.5 to 8 raising a preliminary objection to the effect that this is a private dispute between the parties which cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Along with the reply, a proposal is made by the respondents that they are ready and willing to allow the way to the petitioner from the place which will not require more land of the respondents and the place from where the petitioner is claiming right of way. It is also pointing out that the petitioner is having an alternative route No.2, which is proposed by Ismile Khan, which was refused by the Naib Tehsildar on the ground that the said route is obstructed during the rainy season. The aforesaid aspect was dealt with by the Additional Collector and the matter was remanded back for reconsideration as the aspect of availability of alternative route was not considered by the previous authorities. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. They have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. From the perusal of the record, it is undisputed that the petitioner as well as the private respondent Nos.5 to 8 inherited the property from a common Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 16-12-2025 18:10:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:66953 4 WP-1300-2025 ancestor i.e. Gangaram. The petitioner was in possession of the property and was using the approach road i.e. to go to his fields through the mud bound road through the fields of the respondent Nos.5 to 8. The said mud road was used by the petitioner for approaching his fields from years together. When he was obstructed to use the said Kaccha road, he filed an application under Section 131 of MPLRC before the Naib Tehsildar. The order of the Naib Tehsildar 18.04.2024 reflects that he has inspected the area, called the report from the Patwari and has also granted personal hearing to the private respondent Nos.5 to 8. There is a specific finding recorded on the spot map and the report submitted by the Patwari that there is a 7 feet Kaccha road available and this is the only route available to the petitioner to approach his fields where his house is also constructed. The alternative route which has been suggested is recorded in the name of one Ismile Khan which is near the submerged area and during the rainy season this route is not available due to rains. Therefore, the alternative route suggested is not feasible for the petitioner to approach his fields. The relevant extract of the findings recorded by the Naib Tehsildar are as follows:
"मेरे ारा करण म संल न द तावेजो का अवलोकन कया। ह का पटवार से जांच रपोट ली गयी। ह का पटवार ारा तुत थल पंचनामा अनुसार मौके पर क चा रा ता है तथा लगभग 07 फ ट चौडा है । जो क ाम के सीमट वाले रा ते से कूल के सामने से झाग रया वाले रोड से ारं भ होकर भूिम वामी अशोक, गीता साद, भारत, रामे र, मुशं ीलाल और द वान के खेतो क मेडो से होते हुए आवेदक ल मीनारायण आ० गंगाराम के सव नंबर 4/1/3-27 तक रा ता पहुच ं ता है । खेत म आवेदक का िनवास भी है । जस कारण से आवेदक को कृ ष काय हे तु अपने टे टर लाने ले जाने म सम या होती है पंरतु उ भू वािमयो ारा आवेदक को अपने खेत तक पहुचने म मना कया जा रहा है । अ य वैक पक माग जो आवेदक के घर म प म दशा म अनावेदक गणो ारा बताया गया, वहां पर वतमान अिभलेख म खसरा नं 5/1 पर इ माईल खां के नाम भूिम दज है । आवेदक क भूिम क के उ र म रा ता डू ब भा वत े के नजद क है , वषा काल म रा ता बांिधत होता है । जस कारण नजर न शा अनुसार अ य 2 व 3 वैक पक माग नह दया जा सकता है ।"
8. The aforesaid aspect was duly considered by the Sub Divisional Officer also and the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos.5 to 8 was dismissed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 16-12-2025 18:10:59NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:66953 5 WP-1300-2025 The Panchnama and the inquiry report submitted to the Tehsildar are in consonance with the observations made by the Naib Tehsildar in the order. Thus, it is not disputed that the petitioner is using the 7 feet Kaccha road from years together to approach his fields.
9. The provisions of Section 131 of the MPLRC are important as the petitioner has sought his rights in pursuance to the said provisions, which read as under:
"131. Rights of way and other private easements- (1) In the event of a dispute arising as to the route by which a cultivator shall have access to his fields or to the unoccupied lands or pasture lands of the village, otherwise than by the recognised roads, paths or common land, including those road and paths recorded in the village Wajib-ul-arz prepared under Section 242 or as to the source from or course by which he may avail himself of water or as to the course by which he may drain water from his fields, a Tahsildar may, after local enquiry, decide the matter with reference to the previous customs in each case and with due regard to the conveniences of all the parties concerned."
10. The said provision clearly speaks that Naib Tehsildar after making a local inquiry may decide the matter with reference to the previous customs in each case and with due regard to the convenience of all the parties concerned. The Naib Tehsildar has followed the provisions of Section 131 of the MPLRC, obtained a report from the concerning Patwari and also personally inspected the spot and thereafter has passed the order. In the order dated 18.04.2024 of the Naib Tehsildar, there is a clear mentioning of availability of the 7 feet wide Kaccha road, which goes through the fields of respondent Nos.5 to 8, which the petitioner was using from years together as a right to way to approach his fields and his house. The Naib Tehsildar has categorically observed that the alternative route as proposed by the private respondents falls under the submerged area and belongs to one Ismile Khan and during rainy season, the same is not available for movement due to water logging. The said aspect is not disputed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 16-12-2025 18:10:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:66953 6 WP-1300-2025 the respondent Nos.5 to 8. The Additional Collector has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and merely on the basis of the fact that an alternative route is available to the petitioner as well as the fact that the respondent Nos.5 to 8 was agreeable to grant alternative route to the petitioner has passed the impugned order. The impugned order is without consideration of the report submitted by the Patwari as well as the observations made by the Naib Tehsildar in the order. Therefore, the order impugned dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Additional Collector is unsustainable. It is hereby quashed. The orders passed by the Naib Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer are upheld.
11. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 16-12-2025 18:10:59