Skip to main content


14. Nandu (Applicant) Vs Balu and others (Non-applicant)

Sub:- This case is based on Section 131 of the MP Land Revenue Code.

Facts of the case :-

1. Applicant was a resident of village 'A' and his agricultural land was situated at village 'C'

2. The applicant had to pass through the land of the non- applicant in order to reach his land which was situated at village by the name of 'B' which the applicant had to cross to reach his land.

3. The non-applicant raised an objection to the applicant's crossing his land.

4. The applicant filed a declaratory suit before the Tahsildar and sought the right of passage on the basis of the prevalent custom.

Trial Court:-

The Tahsildar dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant could not prove that he has been continuously using the extent of the land.

First Appellate Court: -

Thereafter, the applicant filed an appeal before the court of SDO against the judgment of the Tahsildar, which was allowed and the or- der of the Tahsildar was set aside.


The non-applicant filed a revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, while allowing the revision, dismissed the order of the SDO and held that Section 131 will not apply in this case.

High Court :-

The Court did not agree to the interpretation of Section 131 by the Commissioner and said that there is nothing in Section 131 which directly or indirectly confines the limits of the 'land of a farmer' to the limit of his village. Therefore, Section 131 will also apply in a case where a farmer applies to shift from his village to his land situated at another village.

Therefore, the court, while allowing the revision application and dismissing the order of the Commissioner, sent back the matter to the Commissioner for settlement according to law.

Judgment :  The revision was allowed.

Law points :-

1. A farmer has a right to reach his land by passing through a land situated at another village.

2. While applying Section 131, one should keep in mind the convenience of other parties also, irrespective of the custom prevalent earlier.

3. Section 131 applies in a case also where a farmer has land in another village also besides land having at his village and he seeks passage to reach there.


Popular posts from this blog

Important Topics for Semester Exam in Environmental Law useful for LL.B Students.

  1.           State facts and the principles of law laid down in the case of Monera Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Society vs M.P. Board of Prevention of Water Pollution, 1993 M.P.L.J.270.   2.            Power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 3.            Discuss the various provisions Indian Constitution concerning Environmental Protection. What are the main features of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the provisions of penalties and procedure for violation of provisions, rules, orders and instructions. 4.            Describe the special provisions in the case of supersession of the Central Board or the State Board constituted under the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974. Explain in brief about the provisions regarding appeal and revision under this Act. 5.            Explain the objects and main provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollut

1. A. Mackenzie vs. J S Izzak, AIR 1970 SC 1906

Ref : AIR 1970 SC 1906 Sub :- This case is based on Section 2 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Facts of the case :- 1. S.S. Dwarka is a ship whose owner is The British India Stream Navigation Limited and Mackenzie was its agent. 2. Shaikh Ibrahim Hasan was a class II seaman on this ship and who was missing from the ship. 3. It was clear from the medical log book that he had a chest pain on 13 December 1961 and he was suffering from it. 4. It was known from the medical checkup that nothing was unusual and medical officer gave him medicines and con- firmed his recovery and joining back on his duty next day. 5. It was known from the log book of the office on 16 Decem- ber 1961 that he was on the ship that day and he was seen on the bridge at 2:50 in the morning. 6. He was found missing at 6:15 in the morning. The master of the ship informed on the radio message at 7:30 in the morning that a seaman is missing between Khoramsar and Asahar and he is likely to be missing in the river.