Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Mr. D.J. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that material on record particularly the panchanama and statements of the persons recorded while conducting panchanama by the Tahsildar would indicate the existence of road and that there is obstruction created by respondent No. 5. The learned counsel submits that although there is overwhelming evidence to show the existence of road, the revisional authority has wrongly held that there is no road in existence and further in exercise of the the powers conferred under MLRC directed to open the road. The learned counsel particularly relies upon para 6 of the judgment of this court passed in Writ Petition No. 13351/2022 dated 4.7.2024 in the case of Prabhakar s/o. Bankatrao Mokase (Jahagirdar) and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. The said para is as under :-

"6. Although, entire proceeding was moved under the Act of 1906, the learned Tahsildar appears to have passed an order invoking provisions under Section 143 of the MLRC, 1966 and granted new cart road in favour of respondent no.5. Apparently, the learned Tahsildar has wrongly exercised jurisdiction under Section 143 of the MLRC, 1966, when proceeding before him was instituted under the Act of 1906. The provisions under Section 143 of the MLRC, 1966 operate in independent sphere and takes care of a different situation than as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act of 1906. In the present case, respondent no.5 specifically pleaded existence of customary way and alleged obstructions at the hands of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, there was no reason for Tahsildar to invoke his jurisdiction under Section 143 of the MLRC, 1966 and grant new cart road in favour of respondent no.5. Unfortunately, the challenge to this order was not entertained in Revision."

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that assessment of the evidence by the revisional authority is perverse and accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned order passed by the revisional authority. In alternate, the learned counsel prays that matter be remanded back to the concerned authority on the ground that evidence on record is not properly appreciated.

7. Per contra, Ms. Madhu More holding for Mr. S.T. Veer, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that there is no evidence to indicate that there is existence of road between the field of the petitioner and respondent No. 5. The learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Mamlatdar under section 5 is erroneous and the revisional authority has rightly held that there is no road in existence. The learned counsel submits that the proceedings were initiated by the petitioner under section 143 of MLRC and not under section 5 of Mamlatdars' Courts Act and the proceedings are converted into appeal. The learned counsel submits that reasonable order is passed by the revisional authority and has exercised the equitable jurisdiction vested in it and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, it is to be seen that there is material available in respect of enquiry conducted. Spot inspection has been conducted and panchanama has been drawn. Statements of various persons have been recorded and finding is given by the Mamlatdar that there is existence of road. However, while reversing the findings the revisional authority ought to have discussed the evidence on record. However, the revisional authority has not discussed the evidence on record and held that there is no map indicating existence of road and has discarded the evidence on merits. Further, the revisional authority has exercised powers under MLRC to give direction to open the road from the boundary of the fields of petitioner and the respondent and the same creates prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there is evidence indicating that the road was in existence and that the evidence ought to have been discussed by the revisional authority while holding that there is road or there is no road. Considering this aspect of the matter and considering that the SDO has exercised the powers under MLRC, I deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter back to the revisional authority for reconsideration.