Bombay High Court
Bhaskar Baburao Katore And Others vs The Sub Divisional Officer Shrigonda ... on 11 February, 2021
Author: V. K. Jadhav
Bench: V. K. Jadhav
1 WP-10958-2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10958 OF 2017
BHASKAR S/O BABURAO KATORE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SHRIGONDA-PARNER
BHAG AND OTHERS
.....
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. R. B. Temak
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Mr. P. B. Shirsath
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 13 : Mr. S. P. Salgar h/f
Mr. N. V. Gaware
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2021
PER COURT :-
1. Heard finally with consent at admission stage.
2. This is about rasta case.
3. Respondent nos. 5 to 13 have filed Rasta Vahivat Case
No. 24 of 2012 under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars'
Courts Act, 1906 before Tahsildar, Shrigonda. According to
them, they are the owners in possession of land Gat Nos.
121, 123, 125, 126, 127, 132 and 152 and the petitioners
and respondent nos. 14 to 16 are the owners in possession of
vre/-
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 12:58:07 :::
2 WP-10958-2017.odt
land Gat Nos. 149, 150 and 152 respectively. Their lands are
adjacent to each other. According to them, there is a
traditional way since 50 to 60 years from the land Gat No.
154 continued from the bandh of land Gat nos. 149, 154 and
thereafter from land Gat Nos. 150 and 152. They are using
the said cart way for various purposes along with the other
villagers. However, the petitioners and respondent nos. 14 to
16 have closed the said way on 01.07.2012. Accordingly,
respondent nos. 5 to 13 have prayed for removal of the
impediments on the said road.
4. The Tahsildar, Shrigonda, by order dated 22.02.2013,
directed the petitioners and respondent nos. 14 to 16 herein
to remove the impediments and further not to obstruct the
said way as claimed by respondent nos. 5 to 13 (original
applicants). It appears that by order dated 25.06.2013, the
Tahsildar, Shrigonda has noticed certain typographical
mistakes in the said order and corrected the same to the
extent of the operative part of the order.
vre/-
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 12:58:07 :::
3 WP-10958-2017.odt
5. Being aggrieved by the same, present petitioner no. 2
preferred Revision before Sub-Divisional Officer, Karjat. By
order dated 19.05.2014, the Sub-Divisional Officer has
allowed the said revision partly and further quashed and set
aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, Shrigonda dated
22.02.2013 and also the corrected order dated 25.06.2013.
Learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrigonda-Parner Bhag,
Ahmednagar has remanded the matter to the Tahsildar,
Shrigonda by directing to give fair opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners. After remand, Tahsildar, Shrigonda, by the
judgment and order dated 10.10.2016, has allowed the said
Rasta Vahivat Case No. 24 of 2012 and directed the
petitioners and the respondent nos. 14 to 16 to remove the
impediment as per the prayer made in the said Rasta Vahivat
case.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent nos. 3 and 4
herein preferred Revision No. 225 of 2017 and by the
impugned judgment and order dated 10.07.2017, the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Shrigonda-Parner Bhag, Ahmednagar has
vre/-
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 12:58:07 :::
4 WP-10958-2017.odt
allowed the said Revision, quashed and set aside the order
dated 10.10.216 passed by Tahsildar, Shrigonda and
confirmed the order passed by Tahsildar, Shrigonda dated
25.06.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent nos. 1
to 3 in Rasta Vahivat Case No. 24 of 2012 have preferred this
Writ Petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in
Revision No. 22 of 2013 the Sub-Divisional Officer once
quashed and set aside the orders passed by Tahsildar,
Shrigonda dated 22.02.2013 and 25.06.2013 and remanded
the matter to the Tahsildar concerned. However, after
remand, the Tahsildar concerned has decided the matter by
allowing the Rasta Vahivat Case by the order dated
10.10.2016. Thereafter, in the revision preferred by
respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein, bearing Rasta Vahivat
Revision No. 225 of 2017, the Sub-Divisional Officer again
restored the said order dated 25.06.2013. Learned counsel
submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer has no power to
review his own order. Learned counsel submits that the
vre/-
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 12:58:07 :::
5 WP-10958-2017.odt
present petitioners are the sufferers because of these
contrary orders and as such, this Writ Petition deserves to be
allowed.
8. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 13-original
applicants has supported the order dated 10.07.2017 passed
in Revision No. 225 of 2017 by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
9. It appears that respondent nos. 5 to 13 herein have
approached Tahsildar, Shrigonda by filing an application
under Section 5 (2) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906
which is registered as Rasta Case No. 24 of 2012 with the
specific pleading about existence of the road on the bandh of
land Gat Nos. 149, 154, 150 and 152. By order dated
22.02.2013, with the corrected order dated 25.06.2013 to
the extent of typographical mistake, the Tahsildar has
recognized the existence of the road from the bandh of land
Gat nos. 149 and 154 and land Gat nos. 150 and 152. Being
aggrieved by the said order, only petitioner no.2 has
approached the Sub-Divisional Officer by filing Revision No.
vre/-
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 12:58:07 :::
6 WP-10958-2017.odt
65 of 2013 with the specific contention that he had no notice
about the said proceedings and without giving an
opportunity of being heard, the said order was passed.
10. Petitioner no. 2 Aananda claims to be the owner of
land Gat no. 152 and denied the existence of the said road
from the bandh of his land. Thus, considering the revision to
that extent only, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrigonda-Parner
Bhag, Ahmednagar has remanded the matter to the
Tahsildar, Shrigonda by setting aside the orders dated
22.02.2013 and 25.06.2013. After remand, though learned
Tahsildar, Shrigonda has allowed the Vahivat Case No. 24 of
2012, however, it appears that learned Tahsildar has passed
the order similar to the order dated 22.02.2013 i.e. prior to
the correction by order dated 25.06.2013. Consequently, in
Revision No. 225 of 2017 filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4
herein, learned Sub-Divisional Officer by giving reference to
the panchanama drawn on the earlier occasion and so also
after remand, passed the same order as per corrected order
dated 25.06.2013.
vre/-
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 12:58:07 :::
7 WP-10958-2017.odt
11. It is pertinent that petitioner nos. 1 and 3 herein have
not preferred any revision against the said order dated
25.06.2013 and only petitioner no. 2 has preferred Revision
No. 65 of 2013. Furthermore, after remand of the matter,
even though the Tahsildar concerned has mistakenly passed
the order as per order dated 22.02.2013 i.e. prior to
correction, respondent nos. 3 and 4 have preferred Revision
No. 225 of 2017. I have carefully perused the order dated
25.06.2013 which is in terms of the correction of the order
dated 22.02.2013. The same is in terms of the prayers made
in the Rasta Vahivat Case No. 24 of 2012. It appears that the
present petitioners are taking undue advantage of the order
passed before remand and after remand. In view of the
same, I do not find any substance in this Writ Petition. Hence
I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.
( V. K. JADHAV, J. ) vre/-
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 12:58:07 :::