The State authorities cannot unilaterally block a cart track which is the only available access to agricultural lands without following the procedure prescribed by section 21 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

Headnote:
CART TRACK - RIGHT OF USER - SECTION 21, MAHARASHTRA LAND REVENUE CODE - Whether it is open to the State authorities to unilaterally blockout a cart track which is the only available access to agricultural lands without following the procedure prescribed by section 21 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and in a case where this is done whether the petitioner would be entitled to a relief for restoration of the status quo ante?
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, tenure holders of agricultural lands, alleged that the State authorities unilaterally blocked a cart track, the only access to their lands, without following the procedure prescribed by section 21 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. They sought restoration of the status quo ante.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the State authorities could not unilaterally block the cart track without following the procedure prescribed by section 21 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It found that the cart track was in existence and was the only means of access to the petitioners' lands. The court also held that the petitioners were entitled to a relief for restoration of the status quo ante.
Issues: 1. Whether the State authorities could unilaterally block the cart track without following the procedure prescribed by section 21 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a relief for restoration of the status quo ante?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on section 21 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which provides the procedure for extinguishing the rights of the public in or over a Government road. The court held that the State authorities were required to follow this procedure before blocking the cart track. The court also relied on the decision in Ardesar Jivanji Mistri v. Aimai Kuvarji, wherein the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that it is essential to comply with the procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Code when dealing with the right of user of a highway.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to restore the cart track or access road of the petitioners forthwith and that it shall be not less than 15 feet wide.

JUDGMENT - M.F. SALDANHA, J.:---A rather ticklish problem that is common to rural India has arisen for determination in this petition and having regard to the delicate stage at which the developments are, the matter requires determination on merits.

2. We formulate the legal issue that is involved which is summarized as follows:

Whether it is open to the State authorities to unilaterally blockout a cart track which is the only available access to agricultural lands without following the procedure prescribed by section 21 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and in a case where this is done whether the petitioner would be entitled to a relief for restoration of the status quo ante?

3. Efforts were undoubtedly made by both the sides to try and find a suitable via media, but having failed, the petition is required to be decided on merits.

4. The dispute is within a narrow ambit. The petitioners are the tenure holders of certain lands which are situated at mouza Sindi, Tahsil Selu, District Wardha, and we are immediately concerned in this petition with the fields constituting Survey Nos. 4/3 and 4/2. That the petitioners are the occupants, is undisputed and they have sought to place heavy reliance on the Nistar patrak which describes the area quite accurately. It is contended by the petitioners before us that adjacent to their lands and to the north thereof, there existed certain unoccupied land bearing survey Nos. 1/1, 5/2, 5/3, 6/1K, 6/3, 7/1K, 7/2 and 8/5. The petitioners have annexed to the petition a certified copy of the map relating to that area and it is their grievance that as a result of certain action on the part of the State Government that the cart track which is the only means of access to the petitioner's land from the Sindi-Seldoh road has been virtually obliterated. It appears that in execution of certain welfare schemes, the authorities have undertaken construction of a colony on the unoccupied land and that in the course of the construction of this colony, it became necessary for them to dig certain wells as also erect a fencing around the colony. This activity has provoked the filing of the present petition because the petitioners have complained that the fencing has been so erected that it virtually touches their land and that the construction of the well has resulted in the only access to their land being totally cut off.

5. The petitioners have further contended that the cart track in question has been in existence for a long time, that it has been used by the petitioner's ancestors and by several villagers and that there is a clear reference to this road in the Nistar Patrak. Under these circumstances, it is the case of the petitioners that there existed a right of user in respect of that road or the cart track in question, which, according to them, could not have been extinguished without having resort to the procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Code.

6. As against this position, the respondents have contended that there was no such well defined road or cart track in existence. They have stated that taking advantage of the fact that the Government land was unoccupied, that the petitioners and others obviously used to pass over the area and since the Government has now occupied that land, the petitioners are restricted to movement in a particular direction and that there is no valid ground for the grievance. The respondents further contended that it was unnecessary to comply with the procedure as prescribed by sections 21 and 22 of the Land Revenue Code which would only apply in the case of regular established roads which are sought to be changed.

7. Mr. Kaptan, learned Counsel representing the petitioners, has pointed out to us that the facts in this case speak for themselves and apart from the documentary evidence which has been produced by the petitioners-which we find both reliable and correct-he contends that if one has a look at the map, it would be self-evident that the petitioners and the adjoinin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis