Bombay High Court
Bhika Rambhau Gondhe And Others vs Sandip Dnyandeo Bhujal And Others on 21 April, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
{1} wp12355-15
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12355 OF 2015
1. Bhika Rambhau Gondhe PETITIONERS
Age - 45 years, Occupation - Agriculture
2. Dhondabai Namdeo Gondhe,
Age - 60 years, Occupation - Agriculture
3. Namdeo Rambhau Gondhe,
Age - 65 years, Occupation - Agriculture
Petitioners No.2 and 3 are represented
through their G. P. A. Holder,
Ramesh Namdeo Gondhe
Age - 27 years, Occupation - Agriculture
4. Sakharam Rambhau Gondhe,
Age - 55 years, Occupation - Agriculture
All R/o Khandarmalwadi, Taluka - Sangamner
District - Ahmednagar
VERSUS
1. Sandip Dnyandeo Bhujbal RESPONDENTS
Age - 38 years, Occupation - Agriculture
2. Yogesh Chabu Doke,
Age - 28 years, Occupation - Agriculture
3. Ganpat Rambhau Gondhe,
Age - 58 years, Occupation - Agriculture
Respondents No.1 to 3 All
R/o Khandarmalwadi, Taluka - Sangamner
District - Ahmednagar
4. The Tahasildar, Sangamner,
Tahasil Office, Sangamner,
Taluka - Sangamner, District - Ahmednagar
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:14:28 :::
{2} wp12355-15
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner,
Sangamner Division, Sangamner ,
Taluka - Sangamner, District - Ahmednagar
.......
Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, AGP for respondent-State
Mr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr. S. S. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent No.2
Mr. S. K. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.3
.......
[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
DATE : 21st APRIL, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
consent of learned advocates for the parties.
2. The petitioners purport to be aggrieved by order dated 29 th
October, 2015 of Sub Divisional Officer, Sangamner refusing to
grant stay upon an application for interim relief in RTS Appeal
No.286 of 2015.
3. Relevant factual scenario, in short, appears to be that
respondent No.1 had initiated proceedings bearing Rasta Case
No.19 of 2013 under section 143 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code seeking a right of way. The same appears to have
been allowed by Tahasildar, Sangamner under order dated 31 st
August, 2015 thereby granting right of way to respondent No.1.
{3} wp12355-15
Aggrieved thereby an appeal has been preferred by all the
respondents in Rasta Case No. 19 of 2013, save one Yogesh
Doke. Along with the appeal, the appellants had also filed an
application for temporary relief, seeking stay to the order passed
by the Tahasildar dated 31st August, 2015. Said application was
rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer, under order dated 29 th
October, 2015. Against said order of refusal to grant stay to the
order of Tahasildar passed by Sub Divisional Officer,
miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by petitioners No.1 to 3
before Additional Collector, Ahmednagar. However, since it was
considered that the appeal is not maintainable, present writ
petition has been filed.
4. Learned advocates for respondents submit that interim
relief granted by this court has been causing inconvenience and
prejudice to the respondents, as their right of way is being
getting hampered.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioners, however, submits
that a right of way is claimed for the first time by respondent
No.1 and very serious prejudice would be caused to the
petitioners, if the same is allowed to stand and it is further being
submitted that since the appeal is pending, which is continuation
{4} wp12355-15
of proceedings claiming right of way, the lis cannot be said to
have been finally decided at this stage.
6. Having regard to aforesaid submission, the situation can be
resolved by passing an order directing the appellate authority to
decide RTS Appeal No.286 of 2015 filed against order dated 31 st
August, 2015 passed by Tahasildar, expeditiously, preferably
within a period of one month, by keeping the interim order
passed by this court operating till disposal of the appeal.
7. As such, the Sub Divisional Officer, Sangamner to decide
on RTS Appeal No. 286 of 2015 as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt
of writ of this order. During pendency of the appeal, the interim
relief, as granted by this court would continue to operate.
8. Writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Rule is made
absolute in aforesaid terms.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
drp/wp12355-15
