O R D E R :

05/07/2021 Petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11.08.2020 passed by Additional Collector, Ujjain in case No.105/Revision/19-20 whereby the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer dated 18.12.2019 has been set aside and order passed by Nayab Tehsildar dated 25.10.2029 has been affirmed.

Facts of the case in short are as under:

2. The respondent No.2 Ramratan approached before the Nayab Tehsildar by way of an application under Section 131 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 against the present petitioners alleging that he being an owner of land survey No.123 area 0.720 hect., survey No.127 hect. Area 0.340 hect., survey No.128 area 0.260 hect., 129 area 0.090 hect. and survey no.130 area 0.360 hect. in total 1.770 hect. situated at Gram Tankariya Panth Tehsil & District Ujjain has blocked his customary way to approach his land survey No.123. According to the respondent No.2 he had a way from the government survey No.131 to survey number of petitioners 124, 125, 126 followed through Medh of Survey No.122 and 117. The people of the other villagers are also using the same way since last so many years. He is using the same way to bring his agriculture equipment and tractors to his land. According to him, the present petitioners are owner of survey No.122,124, 125 and 126 and they have illegally encroached over the government survey No.131 by constructing the house, which has blocked the way of survey No.123. They have also removed the medh of survey No.123, 124, 125 and 126 and included the area of medh in the land and not permitting him to use the way. In alternate he has submitted that he is having another way from survey No.122, 126 and 127 belonging to petitioners. He has further pleaded he is ready to use another way from survey No.121, 122, 120 and 119, which belongs to Satish Choudhary i.e. respondent No.1 in which also the medh has been removed by these petitioners and he is unable to use the same.

3. The present petitioners appeared before the Tehsildar and filed the reply by denying customary way from their land. Vide order dated 25.10.2019, the Nayab Tehsildar has allowed the application by providing a way to the respondent No.2 Ramratan from the west side of survey No.127, 126/1 and med of 124 and 122 belonging to petitioners .

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, passed by Nayab Tehsildar, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 44 of MPLRC before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). Vide order dated 18.12.2019, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has set aside the order passed by the Nayab Tehsildar and provided a new way from survey No.121, 122 and survey 119 and 120. Since the survey No.119 and 120 belonging to respondent No.1/Satish Choudhary, therefore, he preferred a revision before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector found that the SDO (Revenue) has passed the order in respect of land belonging to Satish Choudhary without giving any opportunity of hearing to him therefore, there is violation of natural justice, hence, revisional authority has set aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer(R) and maintained the order of Nayab Tehsildar. Since the order of Nayab Tehsildar is against the present petitioners, therefore, they have filed present petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Petitioners have raised an objection about the maintainability of the revision filed by the Satish Choudhary before the Additional Collector. According to him under Section 46-B no second appeal lies against the order passed by Tehsildar under Section 131 of MPLRC and remedy of revision is confined to the party to the lis. Since, Satish Choudhary was not a party before the Tehsildar as well as before the SDO (Revenue), therefore, he had no right to prefer a revision before the Additional Collector.

6. It is correct under section 46-B of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 , the second appeal does not lie against order passed unde