ORDER

1. Heard on IA No.7171/2023, which is an application for taking documents on record.

2. Documents may be relevant for proper adjudication of this petition, therefore, IA is allowed and the documents are taken on record.

3. Both the parties heard.

4. Petitioners have preferred this miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1.8.2023 passed by the Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora) in Case No.02/Revision/22- 23 and order dated 8.12.2022 passed by the SDO, Biaora in case No.100/A- 13/2021-22.

5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent has filed an application under Section 131, 132 & 133 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short "MPLRC") before the Tehsildar by stating that the passage to his agricultural field was from the Survey No.43/1/1 and 43/2 of village Lodipura and was also from Survey No.27 & 28 of village Habipura, but the petitioners had blocked the passage, therefore, a prayer was made to open the passage.

Tehsildar vide order dated 8.8.2012 has rejected the application. Thereafter SDO, Biaora vide order dated 8.12.2022 allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners preferred Revision before the Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora) and vide order dated 1.8.2023 it has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have preferred this miscellaneous petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the court below is against the law and facts. The revisional as well as the appellate court has not considered the findings and reasons recorded by the trial Court for reaching at the conclusion. The application filed by the respondent is an attempt to find a new approach to connect his land to the national highway, which has been overlooked by both the courts below. The impugned orders passed by both the courts below are perverse and illegal.

Hence he prays that the order dated 6.8.2021 passed by the Tehsildar be restored and the application of the respondent filed under Section 131 of MPLRC be dismissed with cost.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that the impugned order passed by both the below revenue authorities are just and proper and not deserve for any interference.

8. Learned counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the record.

9. From perusal of the record it appears that at the earlier stage, petitioners have filed another miscellaneous petition which has been dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.03.2019 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.5349 of 2018. From perusal of both the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authority it appears that respondent has no alternate way to go to his agricultural field bearing survey No.258/1 and the same has been proved by the spot inspection conducted by the Revenue Authorities in the evidence recorded by them, therefore, the Revenue Authority has provided way of 10 feet to the respondent Chandarlal for doing his agricultural work. It is clearly seen that the opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioners even by the appellate authority as they were represented by their counsel.

10. Therefore, the impugned order passed by both the Revenue Authorities appears to be just, proper and in accordance with the law. Both the Revenue Authorities have not committed any error in dismissing the revision and appeal filed by the petitioners.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the instant case, no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error could be seen in the impugned order. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Khankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that High Court in exercise of its power of superintendence cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by t