Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mrs. Bhagyalaxmi Vijayrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4420 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 4420 Bom
Judgement Date : 12 July, 2017

Bombay High Court
Mrs. Bhagyalaxmi Vijayrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 12 July, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
wp.6142.16.jud                    1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                     WRIT PETITION NO.6142 OF 2016


01]    Mrs. Bhagyalaxmi Vijayrao Pandharipande,
       Aged 56 years, Occupation Agriculturist.

02]    Rahul Vijayrao Pandharipande,
       Aged 32 years,
       Occupation : Service & Agriculturist.

       Both petitioners are residents of
       Chandewani, Taluka Karanja (Ghadge),
       District Wardha.                                     .... Petitioners

       -- Versus -

01]    State of Maharashtra,
       through its District Collector, Wardha.

02]    Gram Panchayat Chandewani,
       Taluka Karanja (Ghadge),
       District Wardha through its Secretary.

03]    Doma Jangluji Ingle,
       Aged 45 years, Occupation : Agriculturist.

04]    Mohan Manikrao Ingle,
       Aged 45 years, Occupation : Agriculturist.

       Respondents 3 & 4 are residents of
       Chandewani, Taluka Karanja (Ghadge),
       District Wardha.                                 .... Respondents


Shri Shashikant Borkar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri B.M. Lonare, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Shri P.W. Jasutkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.




 ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:02:11 :::
 wp.6142.16.jud                           2


                CORAM           : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
                DATE            : JULY 12, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT :-


                Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.



02]             This petition challenges the following orders passed

by - (i) Naib Tahsildar, Karanja             (Ghadge), District Wardha in

Revenue Case No.1-LND-10/2010-2011 on 03/05/2011, (ii) Sub-

Divisional Officer, Arvi in Revenue Appeal No.LND-10/4/2010-

2011 on 30/09/2011, (iii) Additional Collector, Wardha in Case

No.26/LND-10/2011-2012 on 02/07/2015 and (iv) Additional

Commissioner, Nagpur Division in Revision Case No.03/LND-

10/2015-2016 on 16/05/2016.



03]             The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in

brief as under :



            I. On 03/01/2011 petitioners submitted complaint to

                Tahsildar alleging therein that respondents have




 ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:02:11 :::
 wp.6142.16.jud                          3


                diverted drainage in their field by breaking boundary

                wall of their agriculture field and thereby causing loss

                to     petitioners.   Respondent    no.3       also      made         a

                complaint on 21/02/2011 that due to obstruction

                created by petitioners, entire rain water has entered

                in his field and requested to conduct an enquiry.


            II. Vide order dated 03/05/2011, complaint submitted by

                respondent no.3 was allowed and Tahsildar came to

                the conclusion that petitioners obstructed rain water

                and demolished drainage in the field. The directions

                were issued by Tahsildar to reconstruct the drainage

                and restore the same.


04]             Short question in this writ petition is whether Tahsildar

had jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings and issue directions

regarding restoration of drainage. Vide order dated 19/10/2016,

this Court directed respondent no.1 to state the provisions of law

under which exercise was being carried out. In pursuance to the

order, State has filed affidavit-in-reply and in paragraph 5 stated

thus :




 ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:02:11 :::
 wp.6142.16.jud                        4


                     "5. It is further submitted that both the complaints
                  were not filed as per the provision of Section 143 of
                  Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Therefore, the
                  contention of the petitioner is that the Naib Tahsildar
                  have no authority to pass such an order is totally
                  denied by the answering respondent."


05]               It is apparent from the complaint that petitioners and

respondents raised a dispute regarding drainage in the field and

complained to Tahsildar to decide their rights over the drainage.

Needless to state that Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon civil rights of the parties.          By issuing the direction to

restore drainage, Tahsildar has acted as a civil court and

exceeded jurisdiction. On this sole ground, order passed by

Tahsildar being without jurisdiction needs to be set aside.

Hence, the following order :


                                  ORDER

i. Writ Petition No.6142/2016 is allowed.

ii. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (2).

iii. No costs.

*sdw                                                 JUDGE





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter