The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order under Section 143 of the Land Revenue Code attains finality if not challenged, and filing a revision against the Naib Tahsildar's order is not a legally available remedy.

JUDGMENT: - The petitioners herein have approached this Court challenging the order passed by the Sub - Divisional Officer, Nagpur in Revenue Appeal No.3/BND - 56/9394 passed on 12 - 10 - 2000. It was a revision petition filed by the original respondents against order passed by Naib Tahsildar on 28 - 1 - 1974 in complaint of non - compliance of earlier order (order dated 17 - 6 - 89). The Sub Divisional Officer had ordered fresh enquiry in the right claimed by present petitioner.

The said remand order dated 27 - 1 - 2000 is challenged in this petition.

2. It would be necessary to refer to the facts and background in brief which is as follows:

(a) Petitioners filed application herein on or about 21st February, 1989 before the Tahsildar, Nagpur. The application is filed under Section 143 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code r/w. section 5 of Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906. Copy whereof is now supplied by the respondents for perusal.

(b) It is seen that the applicants have purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 30 - 6 - 1982. According to the petitioners they are using the suit way shown in red coloured line the in the map attached to the petition since the date of purchase and used the said way for movement of bullock carts, movement of plough animals etc.

(c) According to the petitioners said way passes through field Survey No. 19/1 (Old No.21/1), which is owned by the non - applicants 1(a) to 1(g) thereafter through Survey No.20/ A - 3, (Old No.20/2) owned by non - applicant No.2 and then across the Nallah and then through field Survey No.30/B - 1 (Old No.111/1) owned by the non - applicants no.3(a) to 3(b) and reaches the petitioners land. The way passes near and touching Dhura boundary of each field survey numbers referred therein.

(d) According to the petitioners, the said way is in actual use of Opponents No.3(a) and 3(b) for approaching their land and similarly by Opponent No.2. The Opponent Nos.3(a) and 3(b) had raised fence on 28 - 4 - 1988 thereby obstructing the petitioners in use of said way for approaching their property. The obstruction is shown along the places marked . 'X' in the map annexed to the application.

(e) According to the petitioners, in revenue Case No.385/88 - 89 of Bharatwada when the spot inspection was conducted, the respondent 3(a) admitted his having raised the obstruction, and when they were directed to remove the obstruction it was complied.

(f) Thereafter, these respondents again obstructed the way, hence, the application was filed under Section 143 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

(g) It is also mentioned in the application that the way was in existence for more than 50 years in the record of rights much prior to 1951. According to the applicants, the cultivators of mouzas around are entitled to use the Dhura for the purpose of passage.

(h) They therefore, prayed for declaration that the applicants were entitled to use the said way and for injunction against the respondents not to obstruct and use their way.

3. The Tahsildar who is the competent authority under Section 143 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 issued notice to the Non - applicants. The application was opposed. The Tahsildar conducted the spot inspection on 30 - 5 - 1989. He then passed the interim order of injunction on 17 - 8 - 1989 and later confirmed the injunction. It was found that Dhura was ploughed and the way which was passing over it, which was available, was destroyed. After hearing, the Tahsildar found that it is the duty of every cultivator to maintain the common Dhura of the boundaries of survey number for smooth conduct of agricultural operation particularly when the field of different owners are adjoining. The nonapplicants have not maintained proper Dhura specially on the eastern side of their fields. The Dhuras have been encroached and thereby they have thereby contravened statutory obligation.

4. Tahsildar, therefore passed the order directing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document