Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Mr. Kale, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent no.5 had initiated proceeding invoking Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 (for short 'the Act of 1906') seeking removal of the impediment for use of customary way and sought consequential relief to pass restrain order against the petitioners, contending that customary way exists between Gut Nos.99 and 100 situated at village Kalkoti. The respondent no.5 is owner of Gut No.96 and the petitioners are the owners of adjacent Gut Nos.99 and 100. The customary way was being used since long. However, same has been obstructed on 15.07.2011. Consequently, proceeding had been initiated seeking intervention of the Mamlatdar. Mr. Kale would further point out that although proceeding was initiated invoking provisions of the Act of 1906, the learned Tahsildar granted new road from common Bandh of Gut Nos.99 and 100, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short 'MLRC, 1966'). He would submit that order passed by the Tahsildar/Mamlatdar was unsuccessfully assailed before the Sub Divisional Officer, Nilanga, Additional Collector, Latur and Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. Hence, this Writ Petition.

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 (4) wp-13351-2022.odt 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.