SMT. RAMKANYA BAI & ANR. versus JAGDISH & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 7 S.C.R. 817 · Decided: 04-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 7 S.C.R. 817 
SMT. RAMKANYA BAI & ANR. 
v. 
JAGDISH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4922 of 2011) 
JULY 04, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959: 
A 
B 
ss. 131, 242, and 257 - Easementary rights determined c 
uls. 131 by revenue court (Tahsildar) - Subsequent civil suit 
by the owner of a land for declaration that seNient owner does 
not have an easementary right, customary or otherwise, over 
his property and the order of Tahsildar uls. 131 recognizing 
such right, is illegal and erroneous - Trial court dismissed the 
0 
suit holding that the revenue court alone had jurisdiction to 
grant relief and not the civil court - Jurisdiction of civil court 
- Held: The Code does not bar the jurisdiction of civil courts 
nor creates any new category of private ea,sementary rights 
not covered by the provisions of the Easements Act -
E 
Decision of Tahsildar will not bar a subsequent civil suit by 
either party to a proceeding u/s 131 in respect of easement 
claimed in the proceedings uls. 131 - It cannot be said that 
Tahsildar alohe has the jurisdiction, and not the civil court, to 
decide upon the existence or otherwise of a customary 
easement - Decision of Tahsildar after a summary enquiry 
F 
with reference to the 'previous custom' and with due regard to 
the conveniences of all parties, u/s. 131(1), is open to 
challenge in a civil suit and subject to the decision of the civil 
courts - s. 257 providing for exclusion of jurisdiction of civil 
court in regard to certain matters, does not apply to any suit G 
involving or relating to easementary rights. 
s. 242 - Customary easements - Wajib-ul-arz - Held: It 
is the record of customs in a village in regard to easements 
817 
H 
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 
A (including the right to irrigation and right of way); and the right 
to fishing in privately owned/held lands and water bodies. 
The first respondent filed an application to the Naib 
Tahsildar under Section 131 of the Madhya Pradesh Land 
9 Revenue Code, 1959 claiming a right of way over the land 
of appellants to reach his lands and the same was 
allowed. The appellants filed an appeal as also revision 
and the same were dismissed. The appellants then filed 
a civil suif seeking a declaration that the first respondent 
does not have an easementary right, customary or 
C otherwise, over his property and the order of Tahisildar 
under Section 131 of the Code recognizing such right, is 
illegal and erroneous. The trial court dismissed the suit 
on .the ground that having regard to Section 131 read 
with Section 257 of the Code, the revenue court 
D (Tahsildar) alone had jurisdiction to graht relief on the 
basis of custom and convenience of parties, and not" the 
civil court. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal as 
also second appeal and the same were dismissed. 
E 
Therefore, the appellant filed an instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Under Section 131 of the Madhya Pradesh 
Land Revenue Code, 1959 a dispute relating to a claim 
F for a customary easement over a private land, relating to 
a right of way or right to take water, which is not 
recognized and recorded as a customary easement in the 
village Wajib-ul-arz could be decided. [Para 6) [826-C~DJ 
Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay AIR 1965 SC 
G 1942:1966 SCR 64; Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh 
1968 (3) SCR 662 - referred to. 
1.2. The Code nowhere bars the jurisdiction of civil 
courts to decide upon easementary rights relating to 
H agricultural or other lands. It neither creates nor 
RAMKANYA BAI &.ANR. v. ~AGDISH & ORS. 
819 
recognizes any new category of private easementary 
A 
'; ~ O · -
. 
1 
. 
-
. : ' • 
· ~. . 
"'· 
. . 
t I 
. 
, 
; 
' I 
l 
· 
' 
. ·· 
. 
rights either by way of right of way or rightto take water, 
' ' . ; 
• 
' 
' 
• ' 
• 
.... 
f ' . 
', ' -
<. 
' 
• ' 
-'. 
• i 
. . 
. ·) • ~ 
-
"' 
'. 
which is not covered by the provisions of the Easements 
• : l; 
' 
• ' 
• ~ 
' • 
. • 
, 
, 
-
. 
' 
~ 
. 
. 
I 
i, I ,. 
. 
~ • } 
,• 
• 
Act or which is not required .. to fulfill ·the requirements 
l 
. " ' 
t 
c 
- ' ..• ~ ~-
' 1 '·' 
,, 
prescribed by the Easements Act. An easement cannot 
be acquired otherwise than in .the manner prov.ided in the 
B 
Easement ~ct. Section 131 of the Code rnerely deals with 
customary easements covered by Sectic;>n 18 of•the 
Easements Act. It cannot be .said th.at the el~ments of an 
easement required to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.