Bombay High Court
Panjabrao S/O. Pandurng Kharbade vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 7 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp3975.15.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3975 OF 2015
PETITIONER: Panjabrao S/o Pandurang Kharbade,
Aged about 60 years, Occu:
Agriculturist, R/o Shivangaon, Tq.
Tiosa, Distt. Amravati.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra Through
Revenue Department Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
ig 2. The Commissioner, Amravati
Division, Amravati.
3. The Collector, Amravati, District
Amravati.
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Chandur
Railway, Distt. Amravati.
5. The Tahsildar, Tiosa, Tq. Tiosa, Distt.
Amravati.
6. The Talathi, Mouza Shivangaon, Tq.
Tiosa, Distt. Amravati.
7. Dilip S/o Ramchandra Bhamkar,
Aged about 57 years, occu: Service,
R/o Shivangaon, Tq. Tiosa, Distt.
Amravati.
Shri S. S. Dhengale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Trupti Udeshi, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1
to 5.
Ms. Vidya Umale, Advocate for respondent No.7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 07
th JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the
wp3975.15.odt 2/4
order dated 23-3-2015 passed by the respondent no.2 in
proceedings arising out of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
2. The petitioner is the owner of the field Gat No.73
while the respondent No.7 is the owner of field Gat Nos.36 and 37.
The respondent No.7 claims to have purchased the aforesaid
property from one Indubai Malwe. The respondent No.7 initiated
proceedings for grant of right of way to approach his agricultural
fields. This application was moved before the Tahasildar. The
Tahasildar himself visited the disputed fields along with the
Talathi who prepared his report. It was held by the Tahasildar that
till Gat No.70, an approach way was available to proceed to the
fields of respondent No.7. It was further observed that the way as
sought by the respondent No.7 was the appropriate way which was
liable to be granted. Hence, by order dated 5-2-2011, the said
application moved by the respondent No.7 came to be allowed.
The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional
Collector by order dated 20-11-2012. The Additional
Commissioner in revision application also confirmed the aforesaid
orders.
3. Shri S. S. Dhengale, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the respondent No.7 had obtained title to
the property in question by virtue of sale deed dated 10-11-2009.
wp3975.15.odt 3/4
In the said sale deed there was reference to a different way for
approaching the suit field and, therefore, it was not open for the
respondent No.7 to have sought the way in question. He submitted
that the way as proposed was likely to cause hardship to the
petitioner and that merely on the basis of convenience such right
of way cannot be granted. He further submitted that other field
owners were using a different way than the one sought by the
respondent No.7.
ig Ms. Vidya Umale, the learned Counsel appearing for
the respondent No.7 supported the impugned order. It was
submitted that the Tahasildar after inspecting the spot found that
the request made by the respondent No.7 for grant of way was
justified. These orders were confirmed by the Sub Divisional
Officer, Additional Collector as well as the Additional
Commissioner and hence the matter did not warrant inteference.
Ms. Trupti Udeshi, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 6 also supported the impugned
orders.
5. Having heard the respective Counsel and having
perused the documents placed on record, it can be seen that the
Tahasildar visited the site in question along with the Talathi after
which the Talathi submitted his report. The Tahsildar held that the
wp3975.15.odt 4/4
way as proposed by the respondent No.7 was a suitable way for
approaching the suit field. It is to be noted that though it was the
case of the petitioner that the adjacent field owners were using a
different way to approach their fields, no evidence was led in that
regard. The Sub Divisional Officer, the Additional Collector and
the Additional Commissioner have concurrently held that the way
as granted by the Tahasildar was the appropriate way which was
granted in accordance with law. As regards the contention that in
the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No.7, there was
a reference made with regard to a different approach way, the
same cannot take away the entitlement of the respondent No.7 to
seek an appropriate way for approaching the field in question.
6. Thus, in absence of any jurisdictional error, I do not
find that any case has been made out to interfere in writ
jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
