Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Harichandra Pundlik Ughade and Pundlik Konduji Ughade, purchased agricultural land Gat No.282/2 at Mouza Rasa, Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal from legal heirs of Bapurao Wararkar under a registered sale deed dated 20/08/2001. On 09/07/2004, respondent No.6, Sau. Nirmala Baburao Turankar, obstructed their right of way over adjacent land. The petitioners approached the Tahsildar, Wani, who initiated Revenue Case No.1/RTW/2004-05. On 19/03/2005, the Naib Tahsildar passed an order granting 4½ feet wide right of way using the boundary of adjacent land bearing Field Survey Nos.316 and 317. Respondent No.6 appealed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani (Appeal No.2/RTS64/2004-05), who confirmed the order. A further appeal to the Additional Collector, Yavatmal (Revenue Appeal No.8/BND56/2005-06) was also dismissed. However, in revision, the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, set aside all three orders. The petitioners challenged this revisional order by way of writ petition. The High Court observed that the revenue authorities had concurrently found that the petitioners had a right of way based on the registered sale deed and long user. The revisional authority could not interfere with these concurrent findings of fact unless they were perverse or without jurisdiction. The court held that the Additional Commissioner had exceeded his revisional powers and restored the orders of the Naib Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, and Additional Collector granting the right of way. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Right of Way - Easement of Necessity - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Revisional Jurisdiction - The petitioners claimed right of way over adjacent land based on registered sale deed and long user. Three revenue authorities (Naib Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Collector) concurrently granted 4½ feet wide right of way. The Additional Commissioner in revision set aside these orders. The High Court held that the revisional authority could not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or without jurisdiction. The court restored the orders granting right of way. (Paras 2-6) B) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 247 - Right of Way - The proceedings were initiated under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for grant of right of way. The High Court noted that the revenue authorities had properly exercised jurisdiction under the Code and the revisional authority exceeded its limits. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction could set aside concurrent findings of fact by three revenue authorities granting a right of way to the petitioners.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 30/09/2011, and restored the orders of the Naib Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, and Additional Collector granting 4½ feet right of way to the petitioners. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Right of way
- easement of necessity
- concurrent findings of fact
- revisional jurisdiction
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
