Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Devman Gangurde, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 19.7.2019 passed by the Deputy Collector, Sub-Division, Chandwad, Dist. Nashik in RTS Revision No. 91 of 2018. The dispute involved agricultural lands in Gat Nos. 36, 37, 34, and 74, which were exchanged among members of the Gangurde family under a consolidation scheme in 1974. Respondent No. 1, Dagu Chiman Gangurde, claimed that an approach road existed since 1974 through the petitioner's lands (Gat Nos. 36 and 37) to his land (Gat No. 74). He relied on sale deeds dated 16.12.1988, which mentioned the approach road to the western side bandh running from north to south. The Deputy Collector, in revision, upheld the existence of the right of way as an easement by necessity under Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The petitioner argued that the Deputy Collector erred in recognizing the right of way without proper evidence. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Deputy Collector's order was based on material evidence, including the consolidation scheme and sale deed recitals, and was not perverse or without jurisdiction. The court noted that the right of way was necessary for access to respondent No. 1's land and had been in existence for decades. The petition was dismissed, and the Deputy Collector's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Easements - Right of Way - Easement by Necessity - Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 - The court upheld the Deputy Collector's finding that an approach road existed since 1974 consolidation and was mentioned in sale deeds, confirming an easement by necessity for access to respondent's land. Held that the right of way was established by long use and necessity, and the Deputy Collector's order was not perverse or without jurisdiction. (Paras 4-6) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The court held that interference under Article 227 is limited to cases of jurisdictional error, perversity, or violation of natural justice. Since the Deputy Collector's order was based on evidence and not perverse, the petition was dismissed. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Collector's order recognizing a right of way over the petitioner's land was legally sustainable under the Indian Easements Act, 1882, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Deputy Collector's order dated 19.7.2019 in RTS Revision No. 91 of 2018.
Law Points
- Easement by necessity
- Right of way
- Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act
- 1882
- Revenue proceedings
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Consolidation scheme
- Sale deed recitals
- Approach road
