Non-compliance with prescribed procedure under the Mamlatdars' Courts act, 1906 renders the orders unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - This petition is directed against the order dated 12-01-2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusawal, in Vahivaat/Revision/62/2021.

2. By filing application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts act, 1906 (for short 'the said act, 1906'), the petitioner claimed that she is the owner and possessor of land Gut No.70/1, admeasuring 1 Hectare 53R of village Chinchkheda, Tq. Bodwad. The respondents' land Gut Nos. 67/1 and 67/2 are adjacent to the land of the petitioner. The petitioner used to approach her land from Shevga Dhondkheda Shiv road and then from the boundary of respondents' Gat Nos. 67/1 and 67/2 South-North Vahivaat road which is the customary Vahivaat road and except that there is no other road. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 obstructed the petitioner from using vahivaat road on 18-10-2019. The Petitioner filed application before the Tahsildar on 19-10-2021 and 11-11-2021 complaining about the obstruction of the respondents. However, no action was taken. On 25-05-2021, the respondents obstructed the petitioner, hence, the present application is filed by the petitioner.

3. Pursuant to the said application, site inspection along with rough sketch of the site (Exhibit-B) was prepared on 07-06-2021. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stated at that time that the petitioner can approach her land Gut No.70/1 from Chinchkhed-Dhondakhed Shiv road and then from the boundary of land Gut Nos. 68 and 69. They are ready to allow the petitioner to use the road from the boundary of land Gut No.67/1, if the petitioner gives them road from eastern boundary of land Gut No.70, so as to enable them to approach their land Gut No.73.

4. The petitioner in support of his application filed affidavit of his vendor from whom he purchased the agricultural land. The adjoining land owners have also supported the case of petitioner stating that for approaching the petitioner's agricultural land Vahivaat road is there from Shevga Dhondkheda Shiv road and from there South-North boundary of land Gat Nos.67/1 and 67/2. The said road is used since long as a customary road.

5. The Tahsildar after considering the record and rival contentions came to a conclusion that the customary road used by the petitioner from South-North boundary of land Gat Nos.67/1 and 67/2 is obstructed by the respondents and therefore, allowed the application filed by the petitioner and directed Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to obstruct the petitioner from approaching her land Gut No.70/1.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of Respondent No. 3 Tahsildar, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed revision before Respondent No. 4 Sub Divisional Officer, which was allowed holding that the petitioner was obstructed from using vahivaat road from boundary of Gut No.67/1 and 67/2 on 18-10-2019 and the application is filed by the petitioner beyond six months' period i.e. on 27-05-2021, which ought to have been dismissed. In the applications filed by the petitioner on 19-10-2021 and 11-11-2021 it is claimed that Shiv road is closed and the same may be cleared. It is not stated that the boundary road of Gut Nos. 67/1 and 67/2 was obstructed. By referring to the village map respondent No.4 held that the land Gut No.67 is one complete Gut and it is not divided. There is no concrete evidence that there was a customary road on its boundary, this evidence is not verified by the Tahsildar. The application filed by the petitioner is not in a prescribed proforma and the witnesses are not examined on oath. Hence, respondent No.4 allowed the revision.

7. Heard the rival submissions of the learned advocate for petitioner, the learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned assistant Government Pleader for respondents State.

8. It is clear from the record that the application filed under Section 5 of the said act, 1906, is not in prescribed format. There is no verification. The procedure prescribed under Sections 7, 9, 11 and 12 of the said act, 1906 is not followed by the Respo