Bombay High Court
Tajuuddin Ismailbhai Musani vs The Additional Collector, ... on 28 October, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 18.wp.457.2018......
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.457 OF 2018
Tajuuddin Ismailbhai Musani
Vs.
The Additional Collector, Yavatmal, Tah. & Distt. Yavatmal and others
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. V. Bhide, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A. A. Madiwale, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 28/10/2021
Heard Mr. Bhide, learned counsel for the
petitioner, who challenges the order passed by the
learned Mamlatdar as well as the Revisional Authority
directing the petitioner, to remove the obstruction to the
natural flow of water into the water course which is to
the West side of the field of the petitioner bearing Survey
No.665.
2. It is the contention of respondent No.3
before the learned Mamlatdar that there is a natural
declination from Gat No. 664, owned by the respondent
No.3 towards the West of which Gat No.665 belonging to
the petitioner, is situated, beyond which there is a water
course and the water therefore, naturally flows into the
water course to the West side. As the petitioner had
erected a Bandh on the Western boundary of his field Gat
No.665, the natural drainage of water was obstructed
because of which, the field of the respondent No.3 was
(2) 18.wp.457.2018......
inundated in the rainy season. Therefore, an application
came to be filed for removal of the obstruction, which
has been allowed by the learned Mamlatdar, the revision
against which has been dismissed, leading to filing of the
present petition.
3. Mr. Bhide learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Complaint by respondent No.3, was not
in proper form, and therefore, could not have been
entertained by the learned Mamlatdar. He further
submits that the impugned orders are incorrect, as the
drainage of water can be from the side of the
Dhura/boundary towards the Northern side of both the
fields.
4. Mr. Madiwale, learned AGP supports the
impugned Judgment and order.
5. A perusal of the order dated 23.03.2016,
passed by the learned Mamlatdar would clearly indicate
that because of a natural slope, towards the Western side,
the natural flow of water was from East to West which
poured out into the water way to the Western side of the
Gat No.665 owned by the petitioner. The construction of
a Bandh by the petitioner, over this out-flow, has caused
the rain water to be accumulated in the field of the
respondent No.3 bearing Gat No.664, due to absence of
any drainage, in view of which, the petitioner has been
directed to remove the obstruction. The learned
Revisional Authority, has in its order dated 16.01.2017
(3) 18.wp.457.2018......
found that any apprehension by the petitioner, regarding
inability to take crop in his land, can be dealt with if the
drainage of water, is permitted adjacent to the Northern
boundary of both the Gat numbers as indicated to the
Map at page 20. Such a course, would clearly not come
in the way of the petitioner, in making useful cultivation
of his field. The direction, therefore, is to the benefit of
both the respondent No.3, as well as, the petitioner in
usefully cultivating their respective fields, considering
which, I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by
the Authorities below.
6. The petition is, therefore, without any merit
and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
Sarkate
