A customary access route determined by competent revenue authorities under local land laws constitutes a valid basis for denying a temporary injunction, provided such findings are not perverse and the petitioner fails to establish a prima facie case for civil interference.

ORDER :

Deepak Khot, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the orders of the appellate Court and Civil Court; whereby, the application submitted by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been dismissed by the Civil Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P/13) passed in MCA No.11/2023 and order dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure P/12) passed in CS No.49A/2023 respectively, in the present petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Civil Suit No.49A/2023 has been filed by the petitioner for permanent Injunction that the respondents/defendants be restrained from impeding the use of agricultural land bearing Survey No.62 and 63 by creating a new way over the land by submitting false and fabricated facts. It has been averred in the plaint that the petitioner/plaintiff is the title and possession holder of agricultural land bearing survey No.62 admeasuring 0.800 Hect. and Survey No.63 admeasuring 2.250 Hect., total area 3.050 Hect. at village Parwariya, Tehsil Barasiya, District Bhopal.

3. The petitioner inherited the said land from his father. It is averred that on the southern side of Government minor canal, Petitioner/plaintiff is the title and possession holder of agricultural land bearing Survey No.63, respondent/defendant No.1 is the title and possession holder of agricultural land bearing Survey No.66 and 67, the respondent/defendant No.2 is the title and possession holder of agricultural land bearing Survey No.65 and respondent/defendant No.3 is the title and possession holder of agricultural land bearing Survey No.72 and 74, over which the parties are cultivating. Over the land of respondent/defendant No.3 land bearing Survey No.72 and 74, there is a way of 2 feet broad and 8 feet long from where the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 commute and transport tractor. It is further submitted that the respondents have never commuted or transported their vehicle over the way of petitioner/plaintiff. Now, because of their ulterior motive, the respondents, on false and fabricated facts, have filed an application under Section 131 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MPLRC’) for creating the customary road.

4. In the said proceeding, the petitioner/plaintiff had submitted the reply stating that such way is not available on the spot. It has never been in existence till date of filing of reply before the Tehsildar and the respondents/defendants have never been using the road which is stated hereinabove and shown in the map from C to B. However, the respondents, in collusion with the Tehsildar, have got an order for the way to access their land vide order dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure P/5). The said order of Tehsildar was challenged in the appeal before the SDO, which was confirmed by the SDO vide dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure P/6). The said order dated 21.03.2023 passed by SDO was challenged in MP.No.1694/2024 before this Court which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure P/9), with the observation the petitioner/plaintiff is at liberty to prosecute his case in the pending Civil Suit. The petitioner/plaintiff has averred that the respondents have never used such way from last 50 years and on the said land the petitioner/pl