• Agriculture path

Hi sir,
            I have a agriculture land in village Ottu Teh Rania Distt-  Sirsa, Haryana. I have only one path to access my land which is owned by my uncle and one other party. But still this path remains 99 Ft away to touch my land because at the head of this existing path their a agri land owned by my uncle. This agri land is 99 Ft long at the head of existing path. The owner parties incl my uncle challenge me to use the existing path which is 99 Ft away from my land and my uncle also forbid me to cross through his agri land. In between I try to talk through panchayat for the existing path and mentioned agri land of my uncle to access my agri lands but they are demanding high cost. They also deny to exchange the path with my agri land. Now I am facing problem to access my lands. I there any provision or justice regarding the issue. It is for ur information that I am using the existing path since 35-40 year to access my land and house situated on joint khasra with my uncle. kindly reply in detail
Asked 3 years ago in Property Law from Sirsa, Haryana
Religion: Sikh
.1)   you will in your suit state that to access your agricultural lands you need to go through your uncle land d for  carrying agricultural implements and taking bullock cart
and     labourers   for   cultivation   and   bringing   home   the

2) This right of way has been used for last 40 years without   interruption   peacefully   and   as   of   right   by  prescription and as of necessity

3) you will have to seek declaration that your uncle  had no right to obstruct the approach way to and frothe field owned and possessed by you 

4) you will have to state that you had acquired easementary
right   in   view   of   Section   15   of   the   Easements   Act   by
prescription   of   continued   un interrupted   user

5)you will need to seek order that  the defendant had no right to obstruct the
easementary way and directed the defendant to remove all
the   obstructions   created   by   him   in   the   suit   way   and
restrained the defendant from causing obstruction in the
user of the suit way by the plaintiff

6) contact a local lawyer for filing suit 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
45545 Answers
2676 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Uttamrao Tulshiramji Madghe
(Dead) through L.Rs. :
1. Kamalabai wd/o. Uttamrao
    Madghe, expired on 
2. Rajabhau Uttamrao Madghe,
    Aged about 39 years,
    Both r/o. Paratwada, near 
    Post Office, Tq. Achalpur,
    District Amravati. ….......APPELLANTS
// VERSUS //
Shrawan Natthuji Bagul (Pagtil),
Aged about 59 years, Occ.
Cultivator, r/o. Salepur,
Tahsil Achalpur, Distt.
Amravati.                ….......    RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2015 21:48:18 :::
Bombay High Court
2 sa9.07.odt
Mr.V.S.Bapat, Adv. for the appellants.
 Mr.M.V.Bute, Adv. for the respondent.
      CORAM     :  A.P.BHANGALE,  J.
      DATE         :  19.4.2014.
1. Heard   the   submissions   advanced   by   the   learned
Counsel for the respective parties.
2. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   and
order dt.6.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District
Judge,   Achalpur   in   Regular   Civil   Appeal   No.4   of   2002
preferred by the original defendant in the suit. The appeal
was allowed.   The appeal arose from the judgment and
order dt.10.12.2001 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.103 of
1998 by the Joint Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Achalpur.  The suit
for   declaration   and   injunction   was   decreed   by   the   trial
Court with costs.  The trial Court had declared the suit way
shown   by   alphabets   'ABCD'   in   the   plaint   map   as
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2015 21:48:18 :::
Bombay High Court
3 sa9.07.odt
easementary   way   of   plaintiff   to   approach   his   field   and
ordered that the defendant had no right to obstruct the
easementary way and directed the defendant to remove all
the   obstructions   created   by   him   in   the   suit   way   and
restrained the defendant from causing obstruction in the
user of the suit way by the plaintiff.   It was also ordered
that the plaint map (Exh.86) in the evidence shall form part
of the decree.
3. Briefly   stated   the   facts   appear   from   the   record   as
under  : 
That the plaintiff claims to be owner and possessor of
field bearing S.No.27/3 (Gat No.77) admeasuring 1 H, 49 R
situated at village Nimkheda, Tq. Achalpur.   The plaintiff
became owner of the suit field in the year 1979 after he
purchased the field.   According to the plaintiff, defendant
had   possessed   land   bearing   Survey   No.29   (Gat   No.69)
admeasuring about 1 H, 23 R adjacent to the plaintiff's field
on western side as indicated in the plaint map. The plaintiff
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2015 21:48:18 :::
Bombay High Court
4 sa9.07.odt
claimed user of the suit way as shown in the map since
beginning   without   any   obstruction   and   it   was   the   only
approach way to his field. According to the plaintiff, the
defendant, in the month of August 1998, had planted 18
orange saplings to create obstruction in the user of the suit
way and to close the user of suit way. Thus, it is the case of
the plaintiff that it became impossible for him to use the
suit   way   so   as   to   carry   his   bullockcart,   agricultural
implements etc. to his field.   Therefore, declaration was
sought in respect of user of the suit way and also that the
defendant had no right to obstruct user of the suit way.  A
prayer was also made for consequent mandatory injunction
directing the defendant to remove the obstruction created
in the suit way. 
4. The defendant in the trial Court had resisted the suit
on the ground that he is in possession of the land bearing
Survey No.29.  The defendant had admitted that WaduraSalepur
  Government   road   is   adjacent   to   his   field   from
northern side as shown in the plaint map, but denied user
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2015 21:48:18 :::
Bombay High Court
5 sa9.07.odt
of the suit way by the plaintiff or his predecessor before the
registered Sale deed dt. 14.5.1987 in respect of the land
bearing old Survey No.29. It appears that the trial Court,
after  considering  the  pleadings and evidence  led by the
parties   including   the   documentary   evidence   and   report
from the Commissioner, found that the plaintiff had proved
easementary right of way through the side 'EFGH' indicated
in the plaint map and that the defendant caused obstruction
to the user of the right of way to the plaintiff.  Thus, the
Court recorded the finding that the plaintiff is entitled to
declaration and injunction, as prayed for.  According to the
learned trial Judge, the map produced by the plaintiff in
respect of the land bearing old Survey No.29 was drawn by
Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Achalpur (Exh.74). Thus,
considering the evidence in the form of document as well as
oral evidence led before the Court in the light of pleadings,
the trial Court was pleased to pass decree in the suit, as
prayed for.  The grievance of the appellant is that the first
Appellate   Court   without   any   justification   reversed   the
findings recorded by the trial Court in respect of user of the
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2015 21:48:18 :::
Bombay High Court
6 sa9.07.odt
right of way for the plaintiff to approach his field by taking
his   bullockcart,   agricultural   utensils,   implements.
According   to   the   learned   first   Appellate   Court,   the   trial
Court had not properly appreciated the material on record
and   reached   to   a   wrong   conclusion.     The   learned   first
Appellate   Judge   relied   upon   the   map   drawn   by   one
Mr.R.K.Deshpande appointed as the Commissioner and on
the ground that Mr.Deshpande in Exh.45 did not observe
existence of way in dispute went on to make observations
ignoring   evidence   led   on   record   and   brushed   aside   the
findings recorded by the trial Court so as to direct dismissal
of the suit.
5. This appeal was admitted on 5.4.2007 upon following
substantial questions of law   :
1. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in
reversing the judgment and decree passed in favour
of the appellant without considering the fact that
the appellant had pleaded that he had acquired the
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2015 21:48:18 :::
Bombay High Court
7 sa9.07.odt
easementary right by prescription and not merely by
necessity  ?
I answer the following substantial question of law in
the negative for the following reasons.
6. Perusal of the plaint in Regular Civil No.103 of 1998
clearly reveals that the plaintiff is owner of the land bearing
Survey No.27/3 (Gat No.77), admeasuring 1 H, 49 R at
village   Nimkheda,   Tq.   Achalpur.     The   plaintiff   became
owner in the year 1979 and on west side of the plaintiff's
field,   the   defendant   claimed   possession   of   field   bearing
Survey No.29 (Gat No.69), admeasuring 1 H, 23 R in Class
II occupancy.  According to the plaintiff, the field claimed
by the defendant was formerly a gaothan (hollow land)
allotted   by   the   Government   to   Maroti   Sheti   Wadar   for
cultivation.  After the death of said Maroti, the defendant
purchased   the   field   from   Ashok   Maroti   Wadar.     Thus,
according to the plaintiff, there was a Government village
road   from   Salepur   to   Wadura   and   the   plaintiff   and   his
predecessor­in­title used to approach the field via Salepur
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2015 21:48:18 :::
Bombay High Court
8 sa9.07.odt
­Wadura road upto the point EA and then turning to the
south by the side of nali adjoining the eastern boundary of
defendant's field by EFGH road upto the point GH and then
used to enter in the plaintiff's field.  Thus, 'EFGH' way was
8 ft. broad as indicated by green colour in the map annexed
with the plaint.  It is used to be the way for the plaintiff for
carrying his agricultural implements and taking bullockcart
and     labourers   for   cultivation   and   bringing   home   the
produce.   This right of way was claimed by the plaintiff
without   interruption   peacefully   and   as   of   right   by
prescription and as of necessity.  Therefore, it was the case
of the plaintiff in the trial Court that the defendant had no
right to obstruct the approach way of the plaintiff to and fro
the field owned and possessed by the plaintiff.  When the
defendant, despite registered notice dt.19.9.1998 served by
the plaintiff, failed to remove obstacles in the form of new
plantation   of   orange   saplings,   the   plaintiff   prayed   for
declaration about the way indicated by green colour with
alphabets 'EFGH' in the plaint map as approach way to the
plaintiff's field indicated as ABCD in the plaint map seeking
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2015 21:48:18 :::
Bombay High Court
9 sa9.07.odt
declaration that the defendant had no right to obstruct the
plaintiff in using way to approach his field. 
7. It   appears   that   the   trial   Court   had   considered   the
evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff along with the map.
The   plaintiff   in   his   deposition   had   clearly   deposed   that
there was gaothan in the same land which the defendant is
claiming as his land.   According to the deposition by the
plaintiff, the defendant had planted 18 saplings of orange
trees on 16.8.1998 so as to prevent the plaintiff from using
the way for approaching plaintiff's field.  The deposition of
the   plaintiff   was   also   supported   by   the   witness   Ashok
Mahadeo Kurade regarding  right of way claimed by the
plaintiff   and  unavailability   of   any   alternate   way   for   the
plaintiff and also by witnesses Bapurao Pund and Sitaram
Lokhande, Marotirao Dhundane, Sahebrao Shelke. While,
as against the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of
the plaintiff, the defendant has examined himself and one
Rajaram   Kathe,   Bapurao   Raut   and   Ramkrushna
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2015 21:48:18 :::
Bombay High Court
10 sa9.07.odt
8. It   also   appears   that,   in   the   trial   Court,   specific
statement   under   signature   of   the   defendant   was   made
under praecipe dt.18.12.1999 that the defendant will not
obstruct the plaintiff till decision of the suit.  The suit was
instituted after the notice dt.19.9.98 was issued from the
plaintiff to the defendant regarding removal of obstruction
by 18 orange saplings.  Thus, looking into the evidence on
record   and   the   plaint   map,   the   trial   Court   had   passed
decree in favour of the plaintiff, as prayed for.   The trial
Court found that the plaintiff had acquired easementary
right   in   view   of   Section   15   of   the   Easements   Act   by
prescription   of   continued   interrupted   user.   Under   these
circumstances, when plaint map was drawn and produced
on record with explanatory footnotes indicating user of the
right of way and obstruction sought to be created, the trial
Court was justified to consider the evidence in detail so as
to pass decree, as prayed for.  
9. On the other hand, the learned first Ad­hoc Additional
District Judge, Achalpur was swayed way by the fact that
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2015 21:48:18 :::
Bombay High Court
11 sa9.07.odt
the   Commissioner   Mr.Deshpande   who   drew   the   map
(Exh.45)   had  not  observed  existence  of   way  in   dispute.
Considering the case of the plaintiff himself that obstruction
was created by the defendant, the fact that Mr.Deshpande
did not observe existence of way in dispute, could not have
been relied upon so as to dismiss the suit.  The approach of
the learned first Appellate Judge to ignore the evidence on
record in the light of plaint map was perverse.  The findings
of the trial Court could not have been brushed aside lightly
without adverting to the evidence led on record for proving
the right of way. It must be borne in mind that the trial
Judge had benefit to see witnesses deposing as to facts in
the trial Court.
10. Learned   Counsel   for   the   appellant   referred   to   the
ruling   in  the   case   of  Manikrao Narayanrao Bhoge and
Others vs. Maheshkumar s/o. Bansilal Vyas and another
reported in 2011 (5) Mh.L.J. 345 to argue that Sections 13
and 15 of the Easements Act need to be read together.
Section 13 of the Easements Act provides for easement of
necessity and quasi­easement, while Section 15 of the Act
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2015 21:48:18 :::
Bombay High Court
12 sa9.07.odt
provides   for   easement   by   prescription   which   are
independent provisions.  If the parties are legally entitled to
exercise easementary right under both the provisions, it is
open for them to do so.  Thus, when the plaintiff produced
evidence in the present case in the trial Court regarding his
right of way enjoyed by him and his predecessor in respect
of   the   approach   way   to   the   suit   land   for   carrying
agricultural   implements,   bullockcarts   etc.   and   when   the
trial Court found the evidence sufficient so as to pass decree
in favour of the plaintiff after recording conclusion that the
defendant had obstructed right of way pleaded and proved
by the plaintiff, the first Appellate Court was unnecessarily
swayed away by argument on behalf of the defendant to
deny legal right declared by the trial Court in favour of the
plaintiff   on   the   basis   of   prescriptive   easementary   right.
Under these circumstances, it appears that even in the case
of Manikrao Narayanrao Bhoge and Others, this Court had
set   aside   the   perverse   conclusion   recorded   by   the   first
Appellate Court and restored the judgment and order which
was passed by the trial Court in that case. In the same
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2015 21:48:19 :::
Bombay High Court
13 sa9.07.odt
manner, in this appeal also, I find that the first Appellate
Court was unnecessarily swayed away by omission on the
part   of   the   Commissioner   to   make   observations   in   his
report.   The   first   Appellate   Court   ignored   voluminous
evidence on record in the form of oral testimony as also
documentary evidence, map annexed with the plaint and
the   admitted   fact   that   the   plaintiff   is   owner   under
registered sale deed and is required to approach the suit
field   by   using   the   way   which   in   the   past   was   part   of
gaothan  land.   Therefore, considering  the well reasoned
judgment   of   the   trial   Court   delivered   with   reference   to
evidence led by the parties, this Second Appeal needs to be
allowed.  The Second Appeal is accordingly allowed.
The judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate
Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2002, dt.6.9.2006 is
set aside accordingly and the judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.103 of 1998,
dt.10.12.2001 is restored.   No order as to costs.
jais JUDGE
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2015 21:48:19 :::
Bombay High Court
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
45545 Answers
2676 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

File a case for easement by necessity before the civil court against the the owner parties including your uncle.

An easement is a right which the owner or occupier of certain land possesses, as such, for the beneficial enjoyment of that land, to do and continue to do something, or to prevent and continue to prevent something being done, in or upon, or in respect of certain other land not his own,An easementary right is almost like a privilege, depriving which the owner of one tenement has a right to enjoy regarding that tenement in or over the tenement of another person, by reason of which the latter is obliged to suffer or abstain from doing something on his own tenement for the advantage of the former. 

Easementary right must possess the following essentials:
1.Dominant and survient tenement
2.Easement should accommodate the dominant tenement
3.Easementary rights must be possessed for the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant tenement.
4.Dominant and survient owners must be different persons.
5.The easementary rights should entitle the dominant owners to do and continue to do something or to prevent and continue to prevent something being done, or in respect of , the survient tenement; and
6.The something must be of a certain or well defined character and be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant.
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
2768 Answers
47 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

1) you cannot access your land unless you pass through  agricultural land of your  uncle . 

2) you have stated that existing path is 99 sq feet away from your land 

3) you will have to prepare map of your land and surrounding lands . show existing path and agricultural land of your uncle . the only right of way available for you should be shown in map 

4) move court for necessary reliefs 

5) i have provided you judgement also of bombay HC 

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
45545 Answers
2676 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

you have easementary right in the adjacent land, you can file suit for giving a way to access of your land. court may pass order if both parties are agreed. if property is land locked and opposite party is nor agree then court can't pass compulsory order.
easement is equitable right you can't claim it as a matter of right.  

you can exchange your land with panchayat bhumi.  
you can approach to the panchayat under Section 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, for exchange of your land .  A Panchayat, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village may, with the prior approval of the Government, transfer any land in Shamilat deh by exchange with the land of an equivalent value to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner in whose jurisdiction the land is situate.
in Mangal vs State Of Haryana And Others, p&h high court has held that panchayat has right to exchange the land and give possession over it.
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
5066 Answers
78 Consultations

4.9 on 5.0

1. The issue of denial of access to lands owned by you can be addressed by enforcing your easementary rights against your uncle and the other person.

2. There is no other legal recourse available to you.

Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
22977 Answers
634 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

1. The absence of path on the agricultural land does not impair you right to seek a passage therefrom to access your land.

2. It is your prerogative to believe either us or people who according to you have fought the case and claim to know more than us.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
22977 Answers
634 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

The high courts and Supreme court always interpret the sections, Rules and laws in the light of changing circumstances.The cause of actions, circumstances of the case and reliefs are always change in all cases.So with out a prejudiced mind approach your case.Due to  joint khasra ,easement by necessity is suitable other than prescription.

In your case there is a declaration and injunction is necessary It must clubbed with the right of easement.
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
2768 Answers
47 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

1. You have easementary right as per section 13 of Easements Act (5 of 1882),

2. Moreover, you are cexecrcising your said easementray right since last 35-40 years,

3. Lodge a police complaint if you are prevented from continuing to execrcise your said right.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
18493 Answers
448 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

1. You can not be prevented from continuing to exercise your easemenatary right which you exercising since last 35-40 years,

2. You have used the said agricultural land for ingress and outgress and can not be prevented from doing so.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
18493 Answers
448 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer