IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that construction on private property requires proper acquisition and NOC from the owners, and that orders issued without legal authority are invalid.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Tamba who appears along with Mr. Paresh Sawant for the Petitioner, learned Government Advocate Mr. Manish Salkar appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Ashwin D. Bhobe appearing for Respondent No. 3. None present for the other Respondents.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. This matter is taken for final disposal with the consent and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The challenge in the present Petition is to the order passed by the Mamlatdar dtd. 29/11/2019 and thereafter, the order passed by the learned Additional Collector in Revision No. 1/2020 dtd. 12/4/2021.

4. Mr. Tamba appearing for the Petitioner would submit that Survey No. 13/3 of Village Gonteli in Sattari Taluka is a private property wherein the Village Panchayat and the PWD started construction of a road without acquiring the said land or without obtaining NOC from the owners. He submits that the Petitioner received a notice from the Mamlatdar, Sattari Taluka, Valpoi dtd. 13/3/2019 which refers to some note and the complaint filed by Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and others, claiming therein that the Petitioner has obstructed the traditional kacha road and asphalting of it. The Petitioner then appeared before the learned Mamlatdar who passed the impugned order dtd. 29/11/2019 thereby restricting the present Petitioner from interfering with the construction of the road by the PWD in Survey No. 13/3.

5. Mr. Tamba would submit that such an order was passed without considering any provisions under the Mamlatdar's Court Act or under the Land Revenue Code. The order nowhere refers to the powers of the Mamlatdar to take up such proceedings and issue directions practically restraining the Petitioner from obstructing the road in Survey No. 13/3. Mr. Tamba would then submit that the Petitioner challenged the said order of the Mamlatdar by filing Revision Application under Sec. 22(2) of the Mamlatdar's Court Act before the Additional Collector. However, the said Application was dismissed on 12/4/2021. He submits that the observations in the impugned order are perverse as no record was placed to show that the Village Panchayat passed any resolution for the construction of a road through Survey No. 13/3 and/or acquired such a portion. He submits that the decree which the learned Additional Collector has referred to was a consent decree passed between two private parties wherein some portion admeasuring 1,526 square metres was reserved as a road for the said parties. He submits that such a decree would not give any right to the Village Panchayat or PWD to construct the road without even acquiring the said land or obtaining NOC from the owners of the said property.

6. Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that PWD was requested by the Village Panchayat to carry out asphalting of the said kacha road and accordingly, the work started. However, he fairly conceded that a portion of Survey No. 13/3 was not acquired by the Government or by the Village Panchayat.

7. Mr. Bhobe appearing for Village Panchayat would submit that though a resolution was passed by the Village Panchayat to carry out construction of the road, it nowhere refers to Survey No. 13/3 of Village Gonteli in Sattari Taluka. However, he submits that such a resolution was passed on the basis of a request of Gram Sabha.

8. The rival contentions fall for determination.

9. First of all, it is an admitted fact that the property in question is a private property. Though there is a decree passed on the basis of consent terms wherein there is a reference to reserving the particular area as the road to be used by the said private parties, the same would not give any right either to the Village Panchayat or to PWD to convert such portion into a public road. The consent decree is passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 5 of 1996 by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Sattari at Valpoi on the basis of consent terms by the respective part