Geetaram Rambhau Date And Another v. Ramdas Laxman Datir And Others
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:6993 920-WP-9238-2022.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9238 OF 2022 Geetaram Rambhau Date And Another VERSUS Ramdas Laxman Datir And Others • Mr. Y. S. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioners • Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to *** 3 • Mr. S. N. Kedre, AGP for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5/State *** CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J DATE : MARCH 04, 2025 PER COURT : 1. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (for short ‘SDO’) in R.T.S. Revision No. 4156/2021 under the provisions of Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The facts led to the filing of this Petition can be narrated in brief as under: Respondents filed application under Section 5(2) of the Act on 01.08.2017 before Tahsildar, Parner. The said application was opposed by the Petitioner by filing say on 29.08.2017. Spot panchnama was conducted on 16.05.2018 and on the basis of the said spot Umesh PAGE 1 OF 8 920-WP-9238-2022.odt panchnama, said proceeding bearing No. 83/2017 came to be allowed. Petitioners filed RTS Revision No.
Legal Reasoning
155/2018. By order dated 24.07.2018, SDO Shrigonda- Parner Division allowed the Revision and remanded the mater back for reconsideration of the Tahsildar. The said case was renumbered as Rasta Case No. 1/2019. Petitioners filed say. On 20.05.2019 Tahsildar visited the spot and prepared the spot panchnama and recorded the findings that there are no signs of existence of any road as claimed by Respondents and that they have alternative road/way available. The said re-inquiry application came to be dismissed by order dated 07.06.2019. Against this order, Revision was preferred bearing no. 225/2019 by Respondents. Once again, SDO set aside the order passed by Tahsildar and remanded the matter back. Again on 18.03.2020 spot panchnama was prepared wherein it is observed that there are no signs of existence of the road. As a result of the said panchnama, Tahsildar dismissed the Rasta Case No. 125/2020 by order dated 08.04.2021. Respondents being aggrieved by the said order, filed RTS Revision No. 415/2021. SDO by impugned order dated 17.08.2022 allowed the said Revision and allowed the original Umesh PAGE 2 OF 8 920-WP-9238-2022.odt applications filed by Respondents under Section 5 of the Act. Hence, this Petition. 3. Learned Counsel for Petitioners submits that the Revisional Authority while passing impugned order has ignored the earlier orders passed by the same Authority wherein the panchnama carried on 16.05.2018 was rejected. It is his contention that all subsequent panchnamas are in favour of the Petitioners and they do not indicate existence of any way in order to allow the application. According to him, the original application filed by the Applicants is vague and without any particulars and map. It is his submission that in such circumstances there was no reason or justification for the Authority to allow the application, which came to be rejected twice. 4. Learned Counsel for Respondents supported the impugned order with submission that the spot panchnama carried out on 16.05.2018 was never set aside by any Authority, however, it was not considered only for technical reason that there was no signature of the person who allegedly made statement before the Tahsildar while conducing the said panchnama. It is his Umesh PAGE 3 OF 8 920-WP-9238-2022.odt submission that the spot panchnama conducted on 20.05.2019 clearly indicates that there is way from the Petitioners’ land, however, it was observed therein that said way is not visible. It is his submission by referring to the map prepared at the time of said panchnama which indicates that between Gut No. 540 and 516 there is water stream and having regard to the depth thereof, it cannot be said that there is any way for Gut No. 540 towards side of Gut No. 513. It is his submission that the panchnama clearly indicates that there was way available up to Gut No. 416 from the side of Gut No. 459 and it is sufficient to demonstrate that the way of Gut No. 416 is obstructed. It is his submission by referring to the spot panchnama dated 18.03.2019 that the same is rightly discarded by SDO for the reason that it is cyclostyle panchnama and ought not to have been relied upon by Tahsildar. 5. At the outset, this Court would like to deal with the contention of learned Counsel for Petitioners about there being no particulars provided by the Respondents in the original application filed under Section 5(2) of the Act. There cannot be any dispute Umesh PAGE 4 OF 8 920-WP-9238-2022.odt about the fact that the proceedings under the Act are for the purpose of urgent relief to the agriculturist whose customary way to approach is agricultural land is obstructed. Needless to say that the said proceedings are summary in nature and no rights of the parties in the property could be determined therein. The requirement for maintaining an application is that the parties to the said proceeding under Section 5 of the Act are conversant with the way claimed by Plaintiff. In this regard, as rightly pointed out by Counsel for Respondents, that from the spot panchnama it is clear that the way, side and the extent thereof is clearly known to the parties. Pertinently, Petitioners have never raised objection in spite of the fact that original application has been remanded back to the Tahsildar twice for decision afresh. The spot panchnamas dated 17.05.2018 and 20.05.2019 clearly indicate that way which is sought by the Plaintiffs/Respondents and opposed by Defendants /Petitioners and thus, parties have full knowledge of the disputed way. Provision of Order VII, Rule 3 of the CPC cannot be applied to these proceedings under Section 5 of the Act with same rigor. In the Umesh PAGE 5 OF 8 920-WP-9238-2022.odt circumstances, this Court finds no substance in the contention of Counsel for Petitioners that the application ought not to have been entertained and allowed by SDO. 6. SDO in the impugned order has made reference to the spot panchnam dated 16.05.2018. In the said panchnama, Petitioners have candidly accepted the existence of way and also stated that they had permitted the Respondents to use the same but does not wish to allow him to do so henceforth. Pertinently, though there were orders passed by the SDO of remanding application back to the Tahsildar, in none of these orders this panchnama has been set aside. Apart from this, perusal of the spot panchnama conducted on 20.05.2019 indicates following: “EkkSts dklkjs xkoBk.kkdMqu ;s.kkj ofgokVhpk dPpk dkMhokV jLrk ¼vankts 7 & 8 QqV #an gk xV ua-416 ps iqoZ cka/kkyxr vlysY;k oknh Jh- nkthck jketh nkrs ;kaps iDD;k ?kjki;Zr ;srks] izfroknh jkenkl y{e.k nkrhj gs ueqn djr vlysyk ofgokV jLrk o xV ua- 416 ps iqoZ cka/kkyxr mRrj fn’ksus xV Uka- 519 Ik;Zr vkysps ueqn djrkr- rFkkih vkt izR;{k LFkGfufj{k.kkvarh xV ua- 416 ps ukaxj.kh dsysyh vlqu x-ua- 416 ps iqoZ cka/kkyxr ofgokV jLR;kP;k gnnh [kq.kk vk<Gqu vkY;k ukghr- xV ua- 416 ps mRrj cka/kkyxr x-ua- 540 vlqu x-ua- 540 e/kqu o xV ua- 416 ps iqoZ cka/kkyxr dPpk xkMh ofgokV jLrk vlysps fnlqu vkys- xV ua- 540 Umesh PAGE 6 OF 8 920-WP-9238-2022.odt ps mRrjsl x-ua- 513 vkgs] lnj nksUgh xVkaps njE;ku uSlxhZd vks<k vkgs- xV ua- 540 e/kqu iq<s tk.kkjk jLrk gk x-ua- 513 Ik;Zr tkrks- vks<;kps fBdk.kh ikg.kh dsyh vlrk R;k fBdk.kh ofgokV jLrk ¼dPpk xkMhokV jLrk½ r;kj dsysps fnlqu vkys- lnj jLrk xV ua- 513 e/;s vlysY;k izfroknh jkenkl y{e.k nkrhj ;kaps iDD;k ?kjki;Zr tkrks- xV ua- 513 e/khy ?kjkps ekxhy cktql ¼if‹pe½ ukenso Bdkth nkrhj ;kaps {ks= vkgs- lnjps {ks= gs vkt jksth ukaxj.kh dsysys vkgs- lnj ukaxj.kh dsysys {ks=ki;Zr dklkjs xkoBk.kkiklqu ;s.kkjk iqokZikj ofgokVhpk jLrk iqoZ fn’ksus ;srks vls fnlqu vkys- lnj ofgokV jLrk o izfroknh ;kaps ?kj ;ke/khy varj vankts 10 QqV vkgs- ukenso Bdkth nkrhj ;kaps xV ua- 513 e/khy vlysY;k {ks=kr iqokZikj ofgokVhpk jLrk fnlqu vkyk ukgh-” 7. This panchnama read with the map drawn by Tahsildar, Parner indicates that between Gut No. 540 and 513 there is a water stream. Moreover, there is a mention about existence of road up to the land of the Petitioners bearing Gut No. 416. Though in the said panchnama it is stated that signs were not found of use of the way, however, it is pertinent to note that as per the case of Petitioner himself in the year 2017 itself Petitioner has refused to permit the Defendants to use the way. In such circumstances, as said portion has been brought under the cultivation, question of any signs being seen of the existence of way does not arise. SDO has rightly taken into consideration the Umesh PAGE 7 OF 8 920-WP-9238-2022.odt said fact and owing to the intent of the provision of Section 5(2) of the Act, the Revision came to be allowed. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the SDO are not perverse in order to cause interference therein. Hence, Petition stands dismissed. 9. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks continuation of order dated 16.09.2022 for a period of four weeks to enable the the Petitioners to challenge this order before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 10. Learned Counsel for Respondent opposed the request on the ground that since 2017 Respondent is denied right of way to his agricultural land. 11. Since the order of this Court is in force for more than a year, there is no impediment to continue the same for next four weeks. Hence, order dated 16.09.2022 to continue for a period of four weeks. Umesh PAGE 8 OF 8 (R. M. JOSHI, J.)