Bombay High Court
Bhausaheb Shivram Walke And ... vs Badshaha Karbhari Satpute And ... on 6 March, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp7033.16.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7033 OF 2016
1 Bhausaheb s/o Shivram Walke
age 58 years, occ. Agril
2 Shivaji s/o Bhausaheb Walke
age 30 years, occ. Agril
3 Ambadas s/o Bhausaheb Walke
age 28 years, occ. Agril
All r/o Kasara Dumala
Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1 Badshaha s/o Karbhari Satpute
age 53 years, occ. Agril
2 Uttam s/o karbhari Satpute
age 41 years, occ. Agril
3 Tulshiram s/o Karbhari Satpute
age 39 years, occ. Agril
4 Dagdu s/o Karbhari Satpute
age 38 years, occ. Agril
5 Rajendra s/o Rambhau Satpute
age 44 years, occ. Agril
All r/o Kasara Dumala
Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar
6 The Sub-Divisional Officer
Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner
Dist. Ahmednagar
7 The Tahsildar, Sangamner
Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. R.L. Kute, advocate for petitioners.
Mr. A.P. Basarkar, AGP for respondents no. 6 and 7.
Mr. S.S. Dixit, advocate for respondents 1 to 5.
=====
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2017 00:56:54 :::
wp7033.16.doc
2
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 6th MARCH, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. Legality and correctness of the order dated 10 th September, 2015
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner, is under challenge
in this petition.
4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Sub-Divisional
Officer has formed the view on the basis of the material available before him
that respondents were using the road which was lying towards western side
of survey no. 14. This view cannot be said to be perverse as it is based upon
material available on record. There are admissions given by petitioners in
the written statement filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 62/2004. Of course,
learned counsel for petitioners submits that there was also a map annexed
to the written statement which shows that what was existing towards
southern side of survey no. 14 was only path way jointly used by petitioners
and some of the respondents. This may be true. But the fact remains that
there is also admission given in the written statement. Therefore, just
because another view is possible after considering the facts and
circumstances of the case available on record, this Court not being the
appellate court, cannot interfere with the view taken by learned Sub-
wp7033.16.doc
Divisional Officer. In order to make any interference by this Court, it is
necessary that it is demonstrated that the view taken is illogical and based
upon some extraneous facts, which is not here. If any disputed question of
fact is there, the petitioners shall be at liberty to seek redressal of grievance
by approaching Civil Court.
5. In this view of the matter, I do not see any merit in the petition. The
petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. Observations of this
Court shall not come in the way of petitioners in approaching the civil Court
for redressal of their grievance. If civil suit is filed, the civil Court shall not
be influenced by these observations.
( S. B. SHUKRE )
JUDGE
dyb
