GULABCHAND Vs. MAHESH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties through their counsel. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 22/11/2018 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Indore in Case No. 423 Appeal/2017- 18.

(2.) Facts of the case reveal that the petitioner has preferred an application u/S. 13(1) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 on 19/7/2016 in respect of right to way. The Tehsildar after recording the evidence has dismissed the application on

(3.) /11/2017. The Tehsildar has arrived at a finding that the present petitioner was not able to establish that there was a path in existence. The order of the Tehsildar is also on record and the same reveals that the respondents has purchased the land 40 years back and he is in exclusive possession of the land and no effort was made by the petitioner claiming right of way. The order also reveals that there was a dispute between the parties and the application has been filed before the Revenue Authorities for demarcation and during demarcation it was established that the petitioner was in possession of 75 'Kadi' extra land belonging to the respondent and this infuriated the petitioner. Thereafter he has preferred an application u/S. 131 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Tehsildar. The order of the Tehsildar dated 3/11/2017 was subjected to appeal and the appellate authority ie., Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has dismissed the appeal on 11/1/2018. Thereafter a Second Appeal was preferred before the Addl. Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore and the same was dismissed by order dated 22/11/2018, meaning thereby, three courts after scanning the evidence has held that the petitioner is certainly having an alternative right of way, therefore, no case is made out for allowing his application u/S. 13(1) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. This Court also does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the revenue Courts below. 3. The Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 in paragraph No.49 has held as under:-