this writ petition, the petitioners-original respondents
in Rasta Case No.29 of 2012 (old) and Rasta Case No.15 of
2016 (new) seeks ... access their land.
4. The petitioners-original respondents in the said Rasta
Case have strongly resisted the said application by filing their
written statement
this writ petition, the petitioners-original respondents
in Rasta Case No.29 of 2012 (old) and Rasta Case No.15 of
2016 (new) seeks ... access their land.
4. The petitioners-original respondents in the said Rasta
Case have strongly resisted the said application by filing their
written statement
judgment and order dated 30.3.2016
passed by the Tahsildar, Shevgaon in Rasta
Case No.37 of 2014 are hereby quashed and
set aside.
3. Matter ... Tahsildar,
Shevgaon with the following directions :-
a] Restore original application bearing Rasta
Case No.37 of 2014 to its original number.
b] The Tahsildar, Shevgaon
about the road, both the
parties filed the separate applications bearing Rasta Case ... passed in
revision by the Sub Divisional officer in connection with Rasta
Case No.32 of 2017 is concerned, the present Writ Petition has
been
submissions
made and the record show that "Rasta Case" mentioned in the
crime punishable under section 353 of IPC was the case
aggrieved by the concurrent orders passed
by the Tahsildar in Rasta Case No.4 of 2018, under Section 5(2) of
the Mamalatdar Courts
Ahmednagar in Revision Application (Rasta) No. 3/2013 and also
the order made by the learned Tahsildar, Jamkhed in Rasta Case
No. 26/2009. Both ... plaintiff of the Regular Civil Suit and
opponents of Rasta Case were preventing him from using the
common Bandh as foot path. After making enquiry
Revisional Authority is sustained, the following
direction is being issued :-
"Rasta Case No.2010/Jama-1/ Rasta/ kavi/ pra.kra.1 shall
stand restored
order made by the learned
Tahsildar, Shrigonda District Ahmedngar in Rasta Case No.
29/2012. The submissions made show that the petitioner is the
owner
petitioner admitted his encroachment over land recorded as 'Rasta'. His case was that this revenue entry ... Rasta' was incorrect. It therefore, stands admitted that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of land of rasta. In case, the revenue entry
