SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
BABASAHEB BHAGWAT PACHORE AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
YOGESH RAOSAHEB PACHORE AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP 1185/2022



Advocates:
['Kute Rajendra L', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'CAVEAT FILED BY ADV V H DIGHE']

1 1185-22-wp.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.1185 OF 2022

1.

Babasaheb s/o Bhagwat Pachore,

Aged: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Pachoremala, Bahadarabad,

Post Jawalke, Tq. Kopargaon,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

2.

Gopinath s/o Bhagwat Pachore,

Aged: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Pachoremala, Bahadarabad,

Post Jawalke, Tq. Kopargaon,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

… Petitioners

Versus

1.

Yogesh s/o Raosaheb Pachore,

Aged: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Pachoremala, Bahadarabad,

Post Jawalke, Tq. Kopargaon,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

2.

Ramnath Changdeo Pachore,

Aged: 57 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Pachoremala, Bahadarabad,

Post Jawalke, Tq. Kopargaon,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

3.

Vandana Gopinath Pachore,

Aged: 34 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Pachoremala, Bahadarabad,

Post Jawalke, Tq. Kopargaon,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

4.

Bhagwat Dada Pachore,

Aged: 73 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Pachoremala, Bahadarabad,

Post Jawalke, Tq. Kopargaon,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

5.

Manish Babasaheb Pachore,

Aged: 39 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2 1185-22-wp.odt

R/o Pachoremala, Bahadarabad,

Post Jawalke, Tq. Kopargaon,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

6.

Draupadabai Bhagwat Pachore,

Age: 69 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Pachoremala, Bahadarabad,

Post Jawalke, Tq. Kopargaon,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

7.

The Sub-Divisional Officer,

Shirdi Division, Shirdi,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

8.

The Tahsildar, Kopargaon,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

… Respondents

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra L. Kute

AGP for Respondents – State : Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar

Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 : Mr. V. H. Dighe

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

RESERVED ON : 08th MARCH, 2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 08th APRIL, 2022

JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2.

This petition is directed against the order dated 26-07-2021

passed by the Tahsildar, Kopargaon, in Rasta Case (Re-Inquiry)

No.152/2021 (Old Rasta Case No.03/2019), which is confirmed by the

Sub-Divisional Officer, Shirdi Division, Shirdi, in Revision Application

No.230/2021.

3 1185-22-wp.odt

3.

The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Rasta Case No.03/2019

before the Tahsildar, Kopargaon, under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar’

s

Courts Act, 1906 (for short ‘the Act, 1906’) claiming that for

approaching their land Gut No.58 there was a road on common Bandh

of lands bearing Gut No.62/5 and Gut No.57. It is obstructed by the

petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 by putting sand, stones and

constructing a shed. Hence, they prayed for removal of the obstruction

and clear 12 feet road.

4.

Site inspection was conducted on 30-05-2019 wherein it

was found that the owner of Gut No.57 had installed iron angles

abutting to the boundaries. Though alternate road was tried to be shown

from Gut Nos. 60 and 59, however, on that day no access road was

found for Gut No.58. On 20-07-2019 the Tahsildar granted temporary

injunction in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

5.

The petitioners and two others (respondent Nos. 3 and 5

herein) filed Regular Civil Suit No.120/2019 against the Collector,

Ahmednagar, Tahsildar, Kopargaon and Circle Officer, Pohegaon, Tq.

Kopargaon, as well as the respondents seeking injunction against the

defendants that they should not create a road from the plaintiffs’ field

and they should not obstruct the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, so

4 1185-22-wp.odt

also, they should not make any encroachment in the suit property i.e.

Gut No.62/5. The Civil Court by a detail order injuncted defendant No.2

(Tahsildar) from acting upon the interim order dated 20-07-2019 passed

in Rasta Case No.03/2019. Further injunction is granted against the

defendant Nos. 4 and 5 (i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) and/or any

one on their behalf, thereby restraining them from creating

encroachment over the suit property, as well as causing hindrance to the

plaintiffs from peaceful enjoyment of the suit property

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top