Bombay High Court
Shankar Baburao Rajage vs Vilas @ Pandurang Ranganath Deshpande ... on 6 August, 2025
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2025:BHC-AS:34026
12-WP9250-2025.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9250 OF 2025
Shankar Baburao Rajage ...Petitioner
Versus
Vilas @ Pandurang Rangnath Deshpande
SANTOSH and ors. ...Respondents
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
Mr. Rajesh Datar, Dushyant Pagare, for the Petitioner.
KULKARNI
Date: 2025.08.08
15:21:19 +0530
Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate, a/w Venkatesh Shinde, for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. A. C. Bhadang, AGP for the State, for Respondent No.3.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED : 6th AUGUST, 2025
ORDER:
-
1. The petitioner takes exception to a judgment and order
dated 25th April, 2025 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Vita, in
RTS/Appeal No.367/2025 under Section 23 of the Mamlatdar's
Courts Act, 1906 ("the Act, 1906"), whereby the revision
application preferred by the petitioner against a judgment and
order passed by the Tahsildar, Atpadi on 26 th September, 2024,
thereby dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner
under Section 5 of the Act, 1906, came to be dismissed by
affirming the said order passed by the Tahsildar.
2. The petitioner had purchased portions of land
admeasuring 5 R and 40 R, out of Gat No.11564, situated at
village Gomewadi, Taluka Atpadi, District Sangli, vide registered
12-WP9250-2025.DOC
Sale Deeds dated 26th September, 1995 and 29th November,
2005, respectively, from Vilas alias Pandurang Rangnath
Deshpande, respondent No.1. The petitioner claimed that under
the said Sale Deed respondent No.1 had agreed and confirmed
that the petitioner would have 10 ft. wide access from the
southern side of Gat No.1564.
3. Respondent No.1 and co-respondents obstructed the said
access to the petitioner's land bearing Gat No.1564. The
petitioner filed Suit No.7 of 2025 under Section 5 of the Act,
1906 for removal of the obstruction.
4. The Tahsildar had a site inspection. A panchnama of the
site inspection alongwith map was drawn. After hearing the
parties, the Tahsildar dismissed the application observing, inter
alia, that the petitioner had access to the suit land from the way
carved out of Gat No.1556 which was given by Shankar Baburao
Rajage.
5. The Sub-divisional Officer found no infirmity in the
aforesaid order passed by the Tahsildar. Hence, the revision
application came to be dismissed by the impugned order.
6. Mr. Datar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the Tahsildar and the Sub-divisional Officer have
approached the controversy from a patently incorrect
12-WP9250-2025.DOC
perspective. The existence of the road referred to in the order of
the Tahsildar was nowhere the subject matter of the inquiry.
Though in the map a road is shown to exist on the western side
of the house and land of the petitioner, there was no material to
show that the petitioner could access the said road to reach
Bhivghat-Atpadi road. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot
be sustained.
7. In opposition to this, Mr. Surel Shah, the learned Senior
Advocate for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner,
despite having an access which was provided under the first
Sale Deed dated 26th September, 1995, unjustifiably demands
access through the land of respondent No.1. Attention of the
Court was invited to the description of the property sold under
the first Sale Deed dated 26th September, 1995.
8. I find substance in the submission of Mr. Shah. The
boundaries of the 5 R land sold under the Sale Deed dated 26 th
September, 1995, clearly record that a 10 ft. wide road on the
western side of the said 5 R land was kept for the access of the
purchaser. It is imperative to note that the claim of the
petitioner stems from the acquisition of the land under the Sale
Deeds. Thus, the source of the right of way is the grant under
the Sale Deed. Since the rough map drawn during the course of
12-WP9250-2025.DOC
site inspection clearly records the existence of the said way on
the western side of the portion of the land bearing Gat No.1564,
which consists of the house of the petitioner, and it corresponds
with the 10 ft. wide access granted under the said Sale Deed,
the authorities were justified in rejecting the claim of the
petitioner for right of way through the portion of the land of
respondent No.1, which falls on the eastern side of the
petitioner's portion of the land. Therefore, no interference is
warranted in the impugned order.
9. Mr. Datar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner may institute a declaratory suit
and, in that event, the observations made by this Court ought
not to influence the decision of the Civil Court.
10. It is needless to clarify that if the petitioner institutes a
civil suit, the same shall be decided on its own merit and in
accordance with law without being influenced by the
observations in this order, which were confined to determine the
legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned orders.
11. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the petition stands
dismissed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
