ORDER S.P. Mitra, Member This revision arises out of an application of the applicant in the Tahsil Court u/s 131 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the Code) claiming a right of way along the boundaries of certain fields of the non-applicant lying in a village to be called village B from his house in another village to be called village A to his fields in a third village to be called village C. The applicant claimed that he was going to his fields in village C from his house in village A along the boundaries of the fields of the non-applicant in village B. The non-applicant resisted the application. The Tahsil Court held that the applicant had not succeeded in establishing that he had been going to his fields along the boundaries of the non-applicant's fields and keeping in view the convenience of the parties, held that the recognized pathway of the village B should be used by the applicant. In appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer accepted the case of the applicant. In revision, the Commissioner set aside the Sub-Divisional Officer's order and upheld that of the Tahsil Court simply on the ground that Section 131 of the Code does not apply where a cultivator residing in one village claims access to his fields lying in another village. He held that a cultivator residing in one village should approach his fields situated in another village by the recognized route or path or waste land of the village. Hence, this revision. I am unable to accept the interpretation of Section 131 made by the learned Commissioner. The opening portion of Section 131 runs thus: In the event of a dispute arising as to the route by which a cultivator shall have access to his fields or to the waste or pasture lands of the village. (underlining by me). The words 'his fields' do not, as such, mean the fields of the cultivator in his own village. The words 'the village' indicate the village of the cultivator i. e. the village in which he resides and limit "the waste or pasture lands" to the waste or pasture lands of the cultivator's own village. (underlining by me). The words 'his fields' do not, as such, mean the fields of the cultivator in his own village. The words 'the village' indicate the village of the cultivator i. e. the village in which he resides and limit "the waste or pasture lands" to the waste or pasture lands of the cultivator's own village. But they do not govern the words his fields and therefore, do not limit the fields of the cultivator to which the section applies to his fields in his own village, in view of the word 'to' before the words 'the waste or pasture lands'. There is nothing else in Section 131 which directly or by implication, limits the fields of the cultivator to fields in his own village. Therefore, Section 131 applies where a cultivator is seeking a route to his fields situated in a village other than a village in which he resides. The order passed by the learned Commissioner has, therefore, to be set aside and the case has to be remanded to him for disposal according to law. The closing words of Section 131 are to the effect that "a Tahsildar may...decide the matter with reference to the previous custom on each case and with due regard to the convenience of all the parties concerned". The question was raised before the Commissioner and also raised before me that if previous custom establishes that a cultivator approached his field by a particular way, convenience of the parties is not to be considered at all. In support, the decision in Kanhaiyalal v. Chhitaria 1962 MPLJ 152 : 1962 Rev. Nirnaya 223, was cited by Shri Vajpai, Learned Counsel for the applicant. In that case, which was u/s 140 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act (hereinafter called the Act), it was held that where there is a conflict between the convenience of the parties concerned, it is best and fairest to let the decision be guided by custom only. In reply, Shri Phadke, Learned Counsel for the non-applicant, referred, to a later decision (unreported) of this Board in Ramsingh and Ors. v. Ambaram and Ors. Revision No. 186 /61 decided on 29-9-1962, in which it has been held that u/s 140 (1) of the Tenancy Act what the revenue Court has to consider is the route by which a cultivator was having access to his fields etc. v. Ambaram and Ors. Revision No. 186 /61 decided on 29-9-1962, in which it has been held that u/s 140 (1) of the Tenancy Act what the revenue Court has to consider is the route by which a cultivator was having access to his fields etc. in the past and the convenience of all the parties. Both these decisions are u/s 140 (1) of the Tenancy Act but as the language of Section 140 (2) of the Tenancy Act and that of 131(1) of the Code are identical, the decisions are pertinent for interpretation of Section 131. I agree respectfully with the view enunciated in Ramsing,s case. (supra), and consider that in deciding a case u/s 131(1) of the Code, a Tahsildar has to take into consideration not only the previous custom in each case but also the convenience of the parties concerned. Only where the convenience and inconvenience of the parties, more or less, balance, can custom be the guiding factor and not otherwise. To this extent only I agree wsith the view expressed in Kanhaiylal's case (supra). The revision is, therefore, allowed. The order of the Commissioner is set aside and the case is remanded to him for disposal according to law. Final Result : Allowed