IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI SECOND APPEAL No. 1309 of 2025 MANGU SINGH Versus BHAIRA AND ANR.

Appearance:

Shri Sandeep Anand Rathore – Advocate for the appellant/plaintiff.

Reserved on : 25/09/2025 Delivered on : 16/10/2025 ============================================

J U D G M E N T

Heard on the question of admission This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16/04/2025 passed by 2^nd District Judge, Khachrod, District-Ujjain (M.P.) in RCA No.02/2025 whereby the judgment and decree dated 22/10/2024 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khachrod, District-Ujjain (M.P.) in RCS-A/24/2022 was affirmed.

Facts of the case, in short are as under :-

2. The appellant/plaintiff case before the learned Trial Court was that he was the owner and in peaceful possession of several piece of lands situated in Village-Kutlana, Tehsil- Khachrod, District-Ujjain. These lands included Survey No.100 measuring 0.270 hectare, Survey No.391 measuring 0.75 hectare, Survey No.540 measuring 0.15 hectare, Survey No.543 measuring 0.70 hectare, Survey No.546 measuring 0.41 hectare, and Survey No.552 measuring 0.21 hectare. The appellant/plaintiff and his forefathers had been cultivating and using these lands since ancient times to facilitate the easy transportation of agricultural produce, tools and other equipments and to avoid inconvenience in movement through large vehicles like tractors etc. The appellant/plaintiff executed a bill of exchange on 05/11/2012 with Dungar Singh son of Gordhan Singh. Through this bill of exchange, he obtained 0.20 hectare of irrigated land from Survey No.103, situated in the northern direction of Barukh. This exchanged land, later recorded as Survey No.103/1 and became the only access route to the plaintiff’s fields and was continuously used by him for personal and agricultural purposes without any interference. 3. The appellant/plaintiff contended that the defendant’s lands, namely Survey Nos.106/1 and 107 were accessible through an existing traditional route passing from Survey No.83, westwards through private Survey No.117/2 and further between Survey Nos.103/3, 105 and 106. This road had been in continuous use by the defendant and other nearby farmers. On 11/12/2017, during a site inspection, the Patwari prepared a spot Panchnama (Annexure-P/4) in the presence of both parties and other villagers confirming this road as the traditional access route to the defendant’s fields. However, despite the existence of this route, the defendant allegedly became dishonest and with ill intention, attempted to obtain another way through the plaintiff’s land, Survey No.103/1. He filed a false case before the Tehsildar, Khachrod, leading to the registration of Case No.001/A- 13/2017-18. Even before the case was decided, the Tehsildar illegally conducted another inspection on 19/12/2018 and wrongly recorded the existence of a path between Survey Nos.104 and 100, declaring a passage over the plaintiff’s land without considering his objections. On 24/04/2019, the Tehsildar passed an order directing that the defendant be given access through Survey No.103/1 and later, the Patwari allegedly prepared a false map showing such a traditional route.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tehsildar, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khachrod registered as Case No.0022/Appeal/2019-20, which was dismissed on 11/03/2020. The plaintiff then filed a further appeal before the Additional Collector, Ujjain, who set-aside the earlier order and remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer with directions to personally inspect the site and decide the matter afresh after recording the evidence. However, despite these directions, the Sub- Divisional Officer again decided the matter without taking proper evidence or conducting any site inspection and by order dated 08/02/2022,