The existence of alternative pathways negates claims of obstructed access to agricultural land by asserting customary rights under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act.

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY :-

The delay caused in filling the main Letters Patent Appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.

The delay is condoned. The Civil Application is disposed of.

The Registry is directed to allot regular number to the Letters Patent Appeal, forthwith.

ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL:-

1. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the record, pertinent is to note the findings returned by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs –

3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the judgment impugned are as under:-

“3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide an order dated 11.12.2024, this Court had directed the Mamlatdar, Gondal, to prepare a fresh Panchnama in presence of both the parties, more particularly showing the location of the disputed pathway as well as existence of any alternative pathway for the petitioners to access their land in question.

4. The private respondents being aggrieved by the order of the Mamlatdar, had approached the Deputy Collector by preferring Mamlatdar Courts Act Revision Case No.4/21 and whereas the Deputy Collector, Gondal, vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2021 had allowed the Revision Application and had set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar. It would appear that the primary contention of the petitioners that there was reference to a pathway in the sale deed by which the petitioners had purchased the land in question, had not appealed to the Deputy Collector. Furthermore, it would appear that the Deputy Collector had also noted that the petitioners have alternative route through which their lands in question. Having coming to such a conclusion, the Deputy Collector had allowed the Revision Application. The petitioners being aggrieved by the same, have approached this Court.

5. As observed hereinabove, this Court had inter alia directed the Mamlatdar, Gondal, to carry out a fresh Panchnama and whereas the same had been complied with and whereas a site map containing the disputed area as well as a site map showing all availability of alternative way, had been submitted by the Mamlatdar. Perusing the same, it would appear that there are two different pathways through which the petitioners could access their lands in question. The first pathway being from the Southern side of land bearing Survey No.114 paikee 2, which travels from village: Nana Sakhpar, upto land bearing Survey No.114 paikee 3 belonging to petitioner No.3 and land bearing Survey No.114 paikee 4,5,6 belonging to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Likewise, there is a pathway, which travells from the opposite side being between Revenue Survey Nos.118 and 111 and touches till Revenue Survey Nos.114 paikee 4,5 and 6 and 114 paikee 3.

6. In this regard, learned advocate Mr. Raiyani would submit that the pathway referred to at the first instance is a private arrangement between some of the land owners and the second pathway would require the petitioners to travel an additional 10 to 12 Kms. to reach their agriculture fields.

7. To this Court, it would appear that both the submissions cannot be countenanced. The Mamlatdar, Gondal, vide the site inspection, which was carried out and which had produced before this Court at the direction of this Court is has clearly found two different alternative routes. While in so far as the second route referred to herein-above is concerned, it is clearly mentioned in the Panchnama that the petitioners had fenced their sides of the pathway in question and whereas, to this Court, it would appear that if the petitioners themselves remove the fencing, the same would give them access to their own lands. As far as the first route is concerned, the site inspection report does not reveal the pathway as being a priva