Landlocked landowners may obtain pathway relief despite an earlier failed claim concerning a different route.

Respondent No. 4 applied under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906, claiming that he and his predecessors had used a route across the petitioners’ lands to access Survey No. 454, and that the petitioners obstructed it in December 2024.

The Mamlatdar allowed the application on 25 May 2026 and directed the petitioners not to obstruct access; the Deputy Collector dismissed the petitioners’ revision on 7 September 2026.

Before the High Court, the petitioners challenged reliance on a 2023 panchnama, referred to an earlier failed proceeding brought by respondent No. 4’s mother, and contended that the claimed route had not been proved.

Respondent No. 4 maintained that the earlier proceeding concerned a different route, while the State supported the orders below.

1. Whether the concurrent orders allowing respondent No. 4 access to Survey No. 454 were affected by perversity or illegality warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

2. Whether the earlier proceeding brought by respondent No. 4’s mother, or the petitioners’ objections to the 2023 panchnama, undermined the factual basis for the access order

Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906, was the statutory basis for respondent No. 4’s application concerning access to his land.

In exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court considered whether the concurrent findings of the Mamlatdar and revisional authority disclosed perversity or illegality warranting intervention.

The Court relied on the panchnama of 10 April 2023, signed by petitioner No. 3, and other official panchnamas to find that Survey No. 454 had no official or other approach road and that respondent No. 4’s land was effectively landlocked.

It rejected the challenge to the 2023 panchnama because petitioner No. 3 had participated in it, and distinguished the 1995 proceeding because it concerned a claim over Survey No. 320, rather than the route at issue.

The petitioners had not established that respondent No. 4 had an alternative route; accordingly, the Court found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent orders.

It dismissed the petition and discharged the Rule.