IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N. J. Jamadar, J.
Sushilkumar Chandrakant Kadam & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sub-divisional Officer & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6021 of 2021
Decided On : 27-03-2023
Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 - Obstruction to Road Access - Section 23 of the Act, 1906 - Gut No.684, Village Khed - Summary: The court addressed the legality of an order under Section 23 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906, which directed the removal of obstruction to a road access. The court found that the road extended beyond the rivulet to the fields of the respondents, and upheld the impugned order directing the removal of obstruction and restraining the petitioners from causing further obstruction to the respondents' access to their lands.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners obstructed a road access by erecting a gate on their agricultural land, leading to a dispute with the respondents who sought removal of the obstruction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the road extended beyond the rivulet to the fields of the respondents, and upheld the impugned order directing the removal of obstruction and restraining the petitioners from causing further obstruction to the respondents' access to their lands.
Issues: Dispute over obstruction to road access, interpretation of the road's extent, and the legality of the impugned order under Section 23 of the Act, 1906.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was justified as the road extended beyond the rivulet to the fields of the respondents, and the petitioners' obstruction caused prejudice to the respondents' access to their lands.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the impugned order directing the removal of obstruction and restraining the petitioners from causing further obstruction to the respondents' access to their lands was upheld.
JUDGMENT
N. J. Jamadar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, correctness and propriety of an order dated 10th January, 2022 passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Koregaon Division, Satara in MCA No.5 of 2021 under Section 23 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 ('the Act, 1906') whereby the revision application preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 3rd December, 2021 passed by the Tahsildar, Koregaon, in an application under Section 5 of the Act, 1906 came to be dismissed.
3. Agricultural lands of the petitioners and respondents are situated at village Khed. River Wangana runs North-South towards East of village Khed. The agricultural lands of the petitioners and respondents are situated towards East of the said river. The petitioners are holders of the agricultural land bearing Gut No.684. Whereas lands bearing Gut Nos.759, 751, 758, 723/1 and 723/3 are owned by respondent Nos.3 to 7. Respondent Nos.3 to 7 claimed a 12 feet wide road was laid to facilitate access to the various fields by public contribution. The petitioners allegedly obstructed the access to the said road by erecting a gate on the said road in Gut No.684.
4. Respondent Nos.3 to 8 thus approached the Mamlatdar under Section 5 of the Act, 1906 for removal of the obstruction to the access to respondent Nos.3 to 7's agricultural lands. It was, inter alia, alleged that the petitioners had obstructed the access by initially dumping the cement pipes and later on erecting a gate by means of cement poles and bamboo sticks.
5. The petitioners resisted the application by filing written statement.
6. A spot inspection was caused to be conducted. It was, inter alia, noted that there was a road running towards North from the western side of Gut No.687, 686, 685 and the said road proceeded towards North through Gut No.684. On the western side of the said road the petitioners had blocked the access by erecting a gate like structure by means of cement poles and sticks. Beyond the said gate the said road led to a rivulet. After crossing the rivulet, the road was found leading to Gut No.751. There was a sugarcane crop in Gut No.684 and a well was also noticed. On the eastern side of the rivulet a road was found to have been laid by means of debris. Existence of the road was also noticed in between Gut Nos.764 and 771.
7. On the basis of the spot inspection report the Tahsildar was persuaded to return a finding that the petitioners had blocked access to the road by erecting a gate like structure. Road was noticed in Gut No.684 beyond the said structure up to rivulet which ran North-South. In Gut No.684 there was sugarcane crop. On the eastern side of the said rivulet towards Gut No.751 a road was found to have been laid. The Tahsildar thus concluded that the petitioners had obstructed the access in Gut No.684 only and the rest of the road was available and open for access. The Tahsildar was not persuaded to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioners that respondent Nos.3 to 7 had an alternate road to access their fields. Since the road was found to exist all along, the petitioners had no right to cause obstruction thereto. Holding thus the application was allowed and the petitioners were directed to remove the obstruction and clear the road within a period of 15 days from the said order. The petitioners were further directed not to cause any obstruction to respondent Nos.3 to 7 in access to their respective fields.
8. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred a revision application being MCA No.5 of 2021 before the Deputy Collector. By the impugned order the Deputy Collector was persuaded to dismiss the revision application. The Deputy Collector was of the view that the site inspection report clearly revealed that the petitioners had created obstacles in the access to the suit road
AI
The extent of road access and the legality of obstruction under Section 23 of the Act, 1906.
Non-compliance with prescribed procedure under the Mamlatdars' Courts act, 1906 renders the orders unsustainable.
Failure to prove the existence of a customary road, obstruction created beyond the statutory period, and failure to consider the observations of the Civil Court led to the quashing of the impugned or....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.