JUDGMENT:- 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the III adhoc Additional District Judge dismissing first appeal (Regular Civil Appeal no. 377 of 2003) filed by the appellants. 3. The respondents are adjoining land owners. The respondents filed an application against the appellants before the Mamlatdar (Tahsildar) under section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short the Code). Respondents claimed a right of way over the bandh/boundary of the property. Sub section 2 of section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code empowers the Tahsildar to pass an order granting access having regard to the needs of the cultivators for the reasonable access to their fields. After considering the necessity of having a reasonable access to the respondents to their field the Tahsildar passed an order granting way over the bandh by his order dated 9.2.2000. Aggrieved appellants filed a suit, bearing Regular Civil Suit no. 187 of 2000, for setting aside the order of the Tahsildar. By an order dated 31.10.2003 the trial Court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal by an order dated 21.10.2005. That judgment is impugned in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is another alternate way available to the respondents for going to their land and they could not claim any easement of necessity. Section 143 of the Code confers independent right on an owner of an agricultural land to claim right of way for having reasonable access to his field. That right is not dependent upon proof of an easement, whether by way of necessity or by way of prescription as provided under the Easement Act. Sub section 1 of section 143 of the Code empowers a Tahsildar to inquire into and decide claims made by persons holding land in a survey number to a right of way over the boundaries of other survey numbers. Sub section 2 of section 143 of the Code provides that in deciding such claims the Tahsildar shall have regard to the needs of the cultivator for reasonable access to their fields. The right conferred under section 143, of the Code, in my view, is independent of the easementary right, if any, under the Easement Act. Sub section 2 of section 143 of the Code provides that in deciding such claims the Tahsildar shall have regard to the needs of the cultivator for reasonable access to their fields. The right conferred under section 143, of the Code, in my view, is independent of the easementary right, if any, under the Easement Act. There would be no need for an agriculturist to apply under section 143 of the Code if an easementary right is available to him. Section 143 of the Code confers a special right, only on the holder of agricultural lands as distinguished from an easementary right which is available both for agricultural as well as urban properties. The decision of the Tahsildar that it was necessary to provide the right of way, having regard to the needs of the cultivator is based upon need of the cultivators for reasonable access to their field. 5. In the circumstances there is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed summararily.