Civil Courts possess jurisdiction to adjudicate easementary rights despite revenue authority's orders, provided disputes are not in respect of Government land.

ORDER :

PRANAY VERMA, J.

01. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by defendants No.1 and 2, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2023 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.14/2023 by the District Judge, Tarana, District Ujjain setting aside the judgement and decree dated 03.08.2021 passed in RCS No.32-A/2021 by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Tarana, District Ujjain and remanding the matter back to it for decision on merits.

02. The facts of the case in brief are that defendants No.1 and 2 had filed an application under Section 131 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) before the Tehsildar in respect of right of way. By order dated 18.03.2020, the said application was allowed by the Tehsildar being aggrieved by which the plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 44 (1) of the Code before the Sub Divisional Officer, Tarana which was dismissed by him by order dated 01.03.2021. Challenging these orders, suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 2 from interfering with his possession over his lands and for declaration that the order dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the Tehsildar are illegal and deserve to be set aside.

03. Upon entering appearance, defendants No.1 and 2 filed an application under Section 80 of the CPC read with Sections 131 , 257 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground of the same being barred by law. It was submitted that the revenue authorities have exclusive jurisdiction to decide dispute as regards a right of way under Section 131 of the Code and the decision rendered therein cannot be challenged by way of a civil suit in view of the bar contained in Section 257 of the Code. The suit challenging such orders passed by the revenue authorities is hence clearly barred. It was also submitted that no notice was issued by the plaintiff under Section 80 of the CPC prior to filing of the suit which was necessary since orders passed by the revenue authorities were being challenged.

04. The aforesaid objections found favour with the trial Court which observed that the suit instituted for challenging orders passed by the revenue authorities under Section 131 of the Code is barred by virtue of Section 257 thereof. The plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Section 80 of the CPC either by issuing notice prior to filing of the suit or taking leave from the Court to institute the suit. The revenue authorities whose orders have been challenged in the suit have also not been impleaded as parties which hence suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. Consequently, finding the suit to be barred by law, the plaint was rejected.

05. In appeal preferred by the plaintiff, by the impugned order, the appellate Court has held that an order passed under Section 131 of the Code can very well be challenged before the Civil Court despite the bar contained under Section 257 thereof. Since the suit was not filed in respect of any Government land, it was not necessary to implead either the State Government as a party or any of its Revenue Officers and to issue a notice under Section 80 of the CPC prior to filing of the suit or taking permission from the Court. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to it for decision on merits.

06. By order dated 03.12.2024, the appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

“A) Whether the suit instituted by plaintiff challenging orders passed by the revenue authoritie