Mere cultivation by a third party does not extinguish an owner's right of access to landlocked agricultural property.

The petitioner purchased agricultural land (Survey/Block No. 1265) in 2011 via a registered sale deed that explicitly mentioned an existing pathway through the respondents’ land (Block No. 1259).

Disputes arose when the petitioner laid gravel on this pathway due to monsoon deterioration, leading the respondents to obstruct access.

The petitioner filed a suit under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. The Mamlatdar, after a site visit, panchnama, and recording evidence, allowed the suit.

The Deputy Collector, however, allowed a revision application and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on grounds including that the petitioner was using a crop-sharing arrangement with a third party and that other farmers did not use the path.

1. Whether the Deputy Collector was justified in remanding the matter based on extraneous factors such as the petitioner’s crop-sharing arrangement with a third party.

2. Whether the existence of an alternative but practically inaccessible route (separated by a water canal) precludes the right to use an established ancestral pathway.

3. Whether the Mamlatdar’s original order was based on a proper appreciation of evidence under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act.

Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906, which empowers the Mamlatdar to preside over disputes regarding the use of roads or pathways to agricultural lands.

The settled legal principle that private agricultural land cannot be rendered landlocked or inaccessible.

Principle of Revisional Jurisdiction: a revisional authority cannot interfere with or remand a well-reasoned order without assigning cogent reasons or by relying on extraneous factors.

The High Court found that the Mamlatdar had followed due process by conducting a spot inspection and preparing a map which clearly showed the pathway terminating at the petitioner’s field, making it the only viable access.

The Court rejected the respondent's argument that the petitioner lost his cause of action because a third party (a crop-sharer) was cultivating the land; it held that ownership rights include the inherent right to access the property regardless of who performs the manual labor.

The Court further noted that the "alternative route" suggested by respondents was blocked by a water canal, making it impassable for agricultural machinery.

Consequently, the Deputy Collector’s decision to remand based on the duration of the crop-sharing arrangement and the lack of other users of the path was deemed "perverse" and "extraneous" to the core legal dispute.

The Court held that the Mamlatdar’s original order was well-reasoned and supported by the registered sale deed and site panchnama; the court restored the Mamlatdar’s order dated 03.08.2023, thereby confirming the petitioner’s right to use the disputed pathway. Rule was made absolute.