Bharat Govardhan Pardeshi And Another vs The Sub Divisional Officer Jalgaon And ... on 5 February, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Bharat Govardhan Pardeshi And Another vs The Sub Divisional Officer Jalgaon And ... on 5 February, 2020

Bench: Rohit B. Deo

                                      {1}
                                                              wp1200516.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                   WRIT PETITION NO.12005 OF 2016


 Bharat Govardhan Pardeshi & another                 Petitioners

          Versus

 The Sub Divisional Offere
 Pafhorae Dist. Jalgaon & others                     Respondents


 Mr.N.V.Gawaree advofate for the petitioners
 Mr.S.K.Tambee A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2.
 Mr.S.D.Hiwrekare advofate for Respondent No.3.
 Respondents No. 4 to 6 served.


                                CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.

                               DATE     : 05th February, 2020.

 P.C. :

 1                The petitioners were respondents in an applifation

preferred by Respondent No.3 Pratapsing Ziprusing Pardeshie who flaimed that the petitioners and 3 others obstrufted the way to the agrifultural felde assigned G.No.15e owned by Respondent No.3. While the petitioners have sufered fonfurrent orderse a fnding of faft is reforded that Pratapsing Pardeshi was using the way from the bandh of the feld of the petitioners and the feld of other respondents in the Rasta Case and that the said way was obstrufted.

::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 00:04:06 :::

{2} wp1200516.odt 2 Notablye while the other respondents have refonfiled to the defisionse it is the petitioners - Respondents No.2 and 5e who are fhallenging the fonfurrent fndings. 3 This Courte vide order dated 09.12.2019e direfted the Sub Divisional Offer to visit the spot personally in the presenfe of the parties and submit the report and the Map. Pursuant to the said ordere the Sub Divisional Offer did the needful and an afdavit is fled on reford by the Nayab Tahsildare along with the panfhanama and the spot map.

4 The spot inspeftion and the panfhanamae whifh is farried out during the pendenfy of the petitione is fonsistent with the fndings of fafts reforded in the orders impugned. The afdavit states that other than the roade whifh is flaimede there is no alternate road to approafh G.No.15e owned by Respondent No.3 herein.

5 The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the referenfe is to foot-way and not pathway. The referenfe in the afdavit and the map appears to be generif. Moreovere in paragraph no.5 of the afdavite it is stated that it is only in view of the standing fropse that what is notifed is a foot-way. ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 00:04:06 :::

{3} wp1200516.odt Paragraph 5 of the afdavit dated 06.01.2020e reads thus:

"5 I say and submit thate as per order of Hon'ble High Court and direftions in para no.2 (Original Applifant) defendant has prayed for vahivat for Gut No.15. I inspefted vahivat road at present frop of fotton is standing in Gut No.16e 17 & 18 and also on boundary fotton frop is standing that is why existenfe of road is in the form of foot trafk (Paulwat) is seen. So at present only use of foot trafk in the form of Paulwat is seen."

6 I do not fnd any reason to interfere with the fonfurrent orders in exerfise of writ jurisdiftion. 7 Petition is dismissed.

ROHIT B. DEO JUDGE adb ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 00:04:06 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court