Advocates:
['ALOK HARGOPAL DAGA', '', 'TRIPTI JHAVER DAGA', 'SHASHANK SHUKLA', 'MRUNALI KADAV', 'A B WAGH', 'G P', '', 'M G SARDA', 'ADV']

1 wp 1462-2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

Writ Petition No. 1462 of 2021

Ramkrishna Nattuji Tayade and Others

Vs.

Chaya Sunil Chakranarayan and Others

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Court'

s or Judge'

s orders

appearances, Court'

s orders of directions

and Registrar'

s orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. Alok Daga, Advocate for the petitioners

Mr. M.G. Sarda, Advocate for the respondent No.1

Ms. T.H. Khan, A.G.P. for respondents No.2 & 3

CORAM :MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED : JUNE 14, 2021

Hearing was conducted through video

conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the

audio and visual quality was proper.

2.

By this Writ Petition, the petitioners have

challenged the judgment and order dated 02/02/2021,

passed by the Court of District Judge, Akola, whereby

appeal against order filed by the respondent No.1 was

allowed. As a consequence, an order passed by the

Court of Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Akola

(Trial court), rejecting an Application for temporary

injunction was set aside and the Application was

allowed in favour of respondent No.1.

3.

The controversy between the parties

pertains to the claims of the petitioners herein about

right of way through the field of the respondent No.1

2 wp 1462-2021.odt

bearing Gat No. 58 to access their fields located in Gat

Nos. 57 and 59 at Mouza Hingana Kumbhari District

Akola. The petitioner No.1 had initiated a proceeding

before the respondent No.3 – Tahsildar under Section

143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966,

claiming that a way to access his agricultural field at

Gat No. 57 existed through Gat No. 58 belonging to the

respondent No.1 and that since the said respondent

had erected fence obstructing the said way, appropriate

order was required to be passed against the respondent

No.1. The petitioners No.2 and 3 had also initiated a

proceeding under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts

Act, 1906 against the respondent No.1 claiming that a

right of way existed through his field bearing Gat No.

58 for access to their field located in Gat No. 59. The

petitioners No.4 and 5 are co-owners of the said fields.

4.

On 02/05/2019, the Tahsildar passed order

under the provisions of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act,

1906 against the petitioners No.2 and 3. On

10/05/2019, the Tahsildar passed order in favour of

the petitioner No.1 under Section 143 of the Code.

Aggrieved by the said orders, rival parties approached

the Sub-Divisional Officer, who by separate orders

dated 15/01/2020 and 27/01/2020, set aside the said

orders of Tahsildar and remanded the matter for fresh

consideration.

5.

Upon remand, the respondent – Tahsildar

passed a common order dated 31/07/2020, holding in

favour of the petitioners and directing the respondent

3 wp 1462-2021.odt

No.1 to remove the obstruction allegedly created by

him to the right of way found to be available to the

petitioners herein. At this stage, i.e. on 20/03/2020,

the respondent No.1 filed suit for declaration and

permanent injunction against the petitioners, claiming

that they had no approach road available through his

field bearing Gat No.58, to have access to their

respective fields in Gat Nos. 57 and 59. Consequently,

the respondent No.1 also sought an order restraining

the petitioners for claiming such a right of way. In the

said suit, the respondent No.1 also filed an application

for temporary injunction.

6.

On 06/10/2020, the Trial Court rejected the

Application for temporary injunction, inter-alia, on the

ground that an appeal filed by respondent No.1 against

the common order