HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR < Singie Bench iH.L. Vs. Surajmai, S/o. Musaddilal Agrawal, aged about 68 years, occupatlon cultivator, resident of Ramadheen Marg, Rajnandgaon. 1. Food Corporation of India, Rajnaadgaon. 2. State of M.P. Through Chief Secretary, Bhopal. 3. Collector, Rajnandgaon. 4. BoardofRevenue.M.P.Gwalior. Shri P. Diwakar, Sr. Advooate with Shri P.K. Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P. Sharma, oounsel for respondents No.1 and 2. ORAL ORDER (Passedon^" March,2007) The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the agricuitural land bearing Khasra No.72/3 situates in Lakholi Village, Rajnandgaon District. (2) . The StaSe Governmert has acquired'the iand in Khasra No.133 situate^ in Lakholi Viiiage and beneficiary of such acquisition is the Food Corporation of India. After aoquisition of the land, the State Govemment has handed over the same to Food Corporation of India for its use. The Food Corporation of tndia in order to protect its property has erected a compound wall. (3) Slnce the Corporation Authorities did not consider the request made by the petitioner for right of passage to go to the iand in Khasra No. 72/3, he has approached the Revenue Authorities to remove the obslryction. The Revenue authorities by invoklng the provisions of Section Wf, ^: h- ^ -2- 133 ofthe Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 ("the Code" for short) had directed the Food Corporation of India to remove the obstruction caused to the petitioner for using his land in Khasra No. 72/3. Aggrieved by those directions, the Corporation had carried the matter before the Board of Revenue,' Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior. The Board of Revenue has eome to. the oonciuston ' that the authorities under the Code could not have invokeci their power under Section 133 of the Code and direoted the Corporation to remove the obstrLsction said to have been caused to the petiSioner for using his !and in Khasra No.72/3 and,' accordingfy, has set aside the order passed by tne Authortties under the Code. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Board of Revenue dated 09.03.1989, the ov/ner of Khasra No. 72/3 's before me in thte writ petition. (4) Shri P. Diwakar, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner woui'd submit that the Board of Revenue is not justified in coming to the conolusion that the authorities under Revenue Code could not have invoked the provisions underSection 133 ofthe Code. (5) Percontra, learned counsel appearing for Food Corporation of India justifies the orders passed by the Board of Revenue. (6) The State Goyernment has acquired the land in Khasra No, 133 for the benefit and use of Food Corporation of !nd@. The land in Khasra No. 134 is adjacent to land in Khasra No. 133 and the land in Khrasra No. 134 is a Government !and. The petitioner was using the !and in Khasra No. 134 to go to his iand in Khasra No.72/3. The Food Corporation of India after taking possession ofthe iand in Khasra No. 133, in order to. protect its interest inthe iand constructed a oompound wali and thereby the petitioner was not :'n a position to make use of his land in Khasra No.72/3. If there was an obstruction of ths right .of passage, as envisaged under sub-Section (2) of Section 131 (rf t-. ^ ^'4 l^. .iiTT 3 the Code, the petitioner shou!d have fited appropriate civil suit and could not have gone before the authorities under the Code. (7) Even othemise, Section 133 of the Code speaks of the removal of obstruction of passage by Tahsildar, if any obstruotion impedes the free use of a recognlzed road, path or common land of a village or impedes the road or water course or souroe of water which has been the subjeot matter of a decision under Section 131 of the Code, the Tahsildar may direct.the person responsible for such obstruction to remove it and if such person fails to comply with the order, he may cause the obstacle to be removed and may recover from such person the cost of removal thereof. (8) The provision of Section 133 of the Code can be pressed into seri/ice only, if the Tahsildar after looa! enquiry has decided the matter with reference to the previous custome? may be on a request made by the petitioner. In the instant oase, such an enquiry has not been he!d by the Tahsi'dar nor any order is passed in jhis regard. Therefore, the officers funotioning under the Code could not have directed the Tahsildar to invoke his powers under Section 133 of the Code to remove the obstruction said to have been caused by contesting responderd on the passage to his lands. (9) In view of the above discussion, 1 am of the opinion that the Board of Revenue is justified in obsen/ing that the Authorities under the Code couid not have directed the Food Corporation of india to remove the so-called obstruction by invoking the provisions of Section 133 of the (pode. Accordingly, the petition requires to be rejected and it is rejeoted. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civi! Court for appropriate relief subject to the provisions ofthe Limitation Act. Ordered accordingly. Sd/-" ChiefJustice Bll KX ^ ^rt. tia :3t:. v—e{ I. :t 1,1 w t.