Advocates:
['DESHMUKH M N', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'GP', 'AND', 'KAWADE SHRIKANT G', '', 'TO', 'TO', 'R/ SERVED']

{1}

wp3157-19

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.3157 OF 2019

Janardhan Ganpatrao Shinde

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and Others

RESPONDENTS

.......

Mr. M. N. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for respondent - State

Mr. S. G. Kawade, Adv. for respondents No. 2, 3, 6 to 15, 18& 19

.......

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

DATE : 6

^th SEPTEMBER, 2022

ORDER :

1.

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4^th June,

2018 passed by the Tahsildar, Lohara in Case No.

2016/Jamabandi /ROR/43 which is confirmed by the Additional

Collector, Osmanabad in Appeal No.2018/RTS/224.

2.

On 9^th June, 2016 respondents No. 2 to 19 herein filed

proceedings under section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906

(hereinafter for short “the said Act”) claiming that the petitioner

has obstructed customary shiv rasta. Pursuant to the said

proceedings, the Tahsildar directed Talathi to conduct

Panchanama and submit site inspection report. Accordingly, site

inspection Panchanama was conducted and report was submitted

{2}

wp3157-19

to the Tahsildar that Shiv Rasta between villages Murshadpur

and Sastur is obstructed by present petitioner and Babruwan

Shamrao Pawar. It is further mentioned that the petitioner and

Babruwan have obstructed said road by stones and there is no

alternate way to the respondents to approach their respective

fields. The Tahsildar, therefore, after considering the site

inspection report and the record, held that Sastur-Murshadpur

shiv rasta is mentioned in the map and the said road is

necessary for the agriculturists for approaching their respective

fields and, therefore, it is necessary to direct the petitioner and

Babruwan, to remove the obstruction. The Tahsildar, therefore,

by the order directed the petitioner to remove the obstruction on

the Murshadpur-Sastur road, mentioned in the map.

3.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tahsildar, the

petitioner filed revision before the Additional Collector under

section 23 (2) of the said Act. The Additional Collector, after

hearing the parties, dismissed the revision. The petitioner,

therefore, is before this Court being aggrieved by the decisions

of the Tahsildar and the Additional Collector.

4.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival

submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective

parties and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Perused

{3}

wp3157-19

the grounds raised in the petition, reply filed by the respondents

and the documents placed on record by the parties. Perused the

record and proceedings.

5.

In the record, old map of 1291 Fasli is filed by the

petitioner. In the said map, road from Goathan of village

Murshadpur to Sastur is shown. It is seen from the said map that

lands of the petitioner and the respondents are situated on the

said shiv rasta.

6.

Site inspection Panchanama reveals that the petitioner has

obstructed the shiv rasta by putting stones on the same. The

Tahsildar, after taking into consideration the record, has arrived

at a conclusion that since Sastur-Murshadpur shiv rasta is

mentioned in the map and the agriculturists need said road to

approach their respective fields, as there is no other alternate

way, it is necessary to direct the petitioner to remove the

obstruction caused by him in the said shiv rasta. Accordingly, the

Tahsildar allowed the proceedings filed by the respondents. The

order of the Tahsildar is confirmed by the Additional Collector.

7.

Learned advocate for the petitioner strenuously submitted

that the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Lohara, has

informed by communication dated 19^th September, 2018 that the

{4}

wp3157-19

shiv rasta between Murshadpur-Sastur is not mentioned in the

village map. He, therefore, submits that there is no such shiv

rasta in e