ORDER B.K. Chaturvedi, J. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of Choudhuri J., in Miscellaneous Petition No. 438 of 1955 decided on 13-12-1956. The Appellants were the Petitioners and are the tenants and residents of Mauzas Saikheda and Khaperkheda in Sausar Tahsil of District Chhindwara. They claim that for their agricultural work they go to their fields by using the foot-path (Pagdandi) through Khasra No. 190 which is the malik-makbuza of Respondent No. 3 Gangadhar who is the ex-proprietor of village Saikheda. They made an application to the Additional Deputy Commissioner for recording the above foot-path through Khasra Nos. 196, 195, 189 and 190 as a custom in the wajib-ul-arz under Section 47(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. 1 of 1951). The Additional Deputy Commissioner found the custom proved and in spite of objections raised by Respondent No. 3, ordered the recording of it in the village wajib-ul-arz. Though the learned Member of the Board of Revenue who heard the appeal against the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 10th August 1955 says that "there appears to be some ground for holding that the pagdandi does exist in the field of the Respondent No. 3", he has not given any definite finding on the point. He has, however, set aside the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner on the ground that there was no provision of law under which a custom could be recorded when there was opposition to such a record being made. In his opinion Section 47 of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act is subject to the provisions contained in Sections 46 and 78 of the C.P. Land Revenue Act, wherein any modification of a custom has to be with the consent of all the persons interested in such entry. [See Section 46(1)(a) of the C.P. Land Revenue Act]. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the provisions of Section 47 of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act are not controlled by the provisions of Section 46 of the C.P. Land Revenue Act and in so far as the Board of Revenue has refused him the relief claimed on this basis, its order is liable to be set aside. The learned single Judge to whom a prayer was made for quashing the said order of the Board of Revenue has declined to interfere. Section 47 of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, so far as relevant for our present purpose, provides as follows: 47 (1) The Deputy Commissioner shall, in regard to lands vesting in the State or remaining with the proprietor under this Act, ascertain in the prescribed manner the custom in respect of-- * * * (d) any other rights and customs which the State Government may direct to be recorded. (2) The Deputy Commissioner shall record in the village wajib-ul-arz, the custom so ascertained and if necessary modify and make entries therein. Under the rules framed for ascertaining the customs, various heads have been provided. Rule 2(VI) provides for customs to be recorded with regard to village roads, paths and rights of way while Rule 2(X) provides for customs regarding rights over the laud belonging to others. Section 46(1) of the C.P. Land Revenue Act says-- On the application of any person interested therein or of his own motion, the Deputy Commissioner, may without prejudice to other provisions of this Act, modify any entry in the record-of rights on one or more of the following grounds. (a) that all persons interested in such entry wish to have it modified;... * * * Section 78 of the C.P. Land Revenue Act provides: The Settlement Officer shall ascertain and record the custom ill each estate, village or mahal in regard to-- (a) the rights of the persons resident in the estate or village or holding lands comprised in the mahal, in the common land of the mahal and its produce, and in the village site; (b) rights to irrigation, rights-of-way and other easements; and (c) any other rights and customs which the Financial Commissioner may direct to be recorded: Provided that, if the person interested desires that any existing custom shall be modified, the Settlement Officer may record the fact, and the custom so modified shall be thenceforth deemed to be existing custom. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue was of the opinion, that as these provisions of the C.P. Land Revenue Act were in conflict with the provisions of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, they had to be reconciled. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue was of the opinion, that as these provisions of the C.P. Land Revenue Act were in conflict with the provisions of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, they had to be reconciled. It was not brought to the notice of the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, nor to the notice of the learned single Judge, that under Section 89 of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, it is expressly provided that-- The provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. It is thus clear that the provisions of Section 47 of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act have to be given effect to notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of Sections 46 and 78 of the C.P. Land Revenue Act may appear to be inconsistent therewith. Apart from this, it will also appear that the provisions of Section 46 of the C.P. Land Revenue Act relate to the contingency when an application for the correction of record-of-rights is made by any person interested therein or such a correction is initiated by the Deputy Commissioner on his own motion. It is under those circumstances that the consent of persons interested in the entry sought to be modified becomes relevant. Under Section 47 of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, power has been given to the Deputy Commissioner independently of the provisions of the C.P. Land Revenue Act to record the customs ascertained by him in the wajib-ul-arz and, if necessary, to modify the entries already existing. We are therefore of opinion that the provisions cannot be subordinated to the provisions of the C.P. Land Revenue Act. The Board of Revenue has not yet determined the appeal in so far as it relates to the objections to the recording of the customs found established by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. We therefore say nothing on the merits of that controversy. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 10th August 1955 is hereby quashed and the case shall now go back to the Board of Revenue for deciding the appeal in accordance with law. We therefore say nothing on the merits of that controversy. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 10th August 1955 is hereby quashed and the case shall now go back to the Board of Revenue for deciding the appeal in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, the parties shall bear the costs of this appeal, as well as of the miscellaneous petition before the learned single Judge, as incurred.