JUDGMENT : A.K.Rath, J - The defendant is in appeal against a reversing judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents instituted the suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that they have installed a rice huller over a piece of land to the west of Aska-Bhanjanagar road. The said mill has access to the eastern Aska-Bhanjanagar road and another road to the north known as Jahada-Mangalapur road. Since the defendant had obstructed the right of access to the Aska-Bhanjanagar road, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant is that he is running a hotel in a thatched house constructed over the suit land for more than forty years. The house no way obstructs the plaintiffs to approach the road. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck seven issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their case. Learned trial court dismissed the suit with a finding that mill premise faces towards Jahada road. The structure of the defendant does not cause any obstruction for the passage to the mill premises of the plaintiffs. Felt aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed T.A. No. 21 of 1989 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska. Learned appellate court came to hold that the defendant admitted that he has a hotel at the gate-side. Since the plaintiffs have got their mill house by the road side, they have right of free access to the high way from the point of the boundary of their land and the defendant cannot obstruct the same by constructing a thatched house by the road side. Held so, it allowed the appeal. 5. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the plaintiffs can claim access to his land abutting to the National High Way from each point ?" 6. Mr. B.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the defendant is a poor man. He is running a hotel in a thatched house. The house has not made any obstruction for ingress and egress to the plaintiffs' mill. The plaintiffs have alternative passage to the Berhampur-Kalinga road. 7. Per contra, Mr. L. Samantaray, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the defendant has constructed a hotel on the Government land. He is running a hotel in a thatched house. The house has not made any obstruction for ingress and egress to the plaintiffs' mill. The plaintiffs have alternative passage to the Berhampur-Kalinga road. 7. Per contra, Mr. L. Samantaray, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the defendant has constructed a hotel on the Government land. The same has caused obstruction for passage to the mill. 8. The Patna High Court in District Board of Manbhum v. Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. and another, (1945) AIR(Pat) 200, held that the plaintiff has a right of access to the road to every part of the roadside land which abuts on to his land even though he may have fenced it off or raised a wall for the convenience and even if he had opened a gateway. 9. The Madras High Court in Damodara Naidu and others v. Thirupurasundari Ammal and another, (1972) AIR(Madras) 386, held that where there is a public highway, the owners of land adjoining the highway have a right to go upon the highway from any point on their land; and if that right is obstructed by anyone, the owner of the land abutting the highway is entitled to maintain an action for the injury, whether the obstruction does or does not constitute a public nuisance. 10. The defendant admitted that he has a hotel at the gateside. Learned appellate court has rightly held that since the plaintiffs have got their mill house by the road side, they have right of free access to the high way from the point of the boundary of their land and the defendant cannot obstruct the same by constructing a thatched house by the road side. There is no perversity or illegality in the said findings. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 11. A priori, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed