NANDU Vs. BALU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of an application of the applicant in the Tahsil Court under Section 131 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the Code) claiming a right of way along the boundaries of certain fields of the non-applicant lying in a village to be called village B from his house in another village to be called village A to his fields in a third village to be called village C. The applicant claimed that he was going to his fields in village C from his house in village A along the boundaries of the fields of the non-applicant in village B. The non-applicant resisted the application. The Tahsil Court held that the applicant had not succeeded in establishing that he had been going to his fields along the boundaries of the non-applicant's fields and keeping in view the convenience of the parties, held that the recognized pathway of the village B should be used by the applicant. In appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer accepted the case of the applicant. In revision, the Commissioner set aside the Sub-Divisional Officer's order and upheld that of the Tahsil Court simply on the ground that Section 131 of the Code does not apply where a cultivator residing in one village claims access to his fields lying in another village. He held that a cultivator residing in one village should approach his fields situated in another village by the recognized route or path or waste land of the village. Hence, this revision.

(2.) I am unable to accept the interpretation of Section 131 made by the learned Commissioner. The opening portion of Section 131 runs thus:

(3.) In the event of a dispute arising as to the route by which a cultivator shall have access to his fields or to the waste or pasture lands of the village.