Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, owners of land Survey No. 624, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Khamgaon, dated 20.06.2016, which directed them to remove obstruction on a Government road flowing from North to South through their land. The respondent No.7, owner of adjacent land Survey No. 623, had started a school and sought removal of obstruction/opening of the Government road. The Tahsildar had rejected the application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts' Act on 10.06.2015, observing that the road stopped at the end of Survey No. 624 and did not connect to Survey No. 623. However, the Sub Divisional Officer, in revision under Section 23(2) of the Act, set aside the Tahsildar's order and directed removal of the obstruction. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the existence of the Government road was not in dispute and the obstruction was created by the petitioners. The court found no error in the revisional order and upheld it.
Headnote
A) Mamlatdar Courts' Act - Section 5 - Removal of Obstruction - Government Road - The petitioners were directed to remove obstruction on a Government road flowing through their land. The Tahsildar had rejected the application, but the Sub Divisional Officer in revision set aside that order. The High Court upheld the revisional order, noting that the existence of the Government road was not disputed and the obstruction was created by the petitioners. (Paras 2-4)
B) Mamlatdar Courts' Act - Section 23(2) - Revision - Scope - The revisional authority can set aside an order if it is erroneous. In this case, the Sub Divisional Officer found that the Tahsildar's order was based on an irrelevant consideration that the road stopped at the end of the petitioners' land, ignoring that the road was a Government road and the obstruction was created by the petitioners. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sub Divisional Officer was justified in setting aside the Tahsildar's order and directing removal of obstruction on a Government road under the Mamlatdar Courts' Act.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 20.06.2016 upheld. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mamlatdar Courts' Act
- 1906
- Section 5
- Section 23(2)
- Government road
- obstruction
- removal
- revision
- concurrent findings
- writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (12) 100
WRIT PETITION NO. 4227 OF 2016
Shri Yash Maheshwari, Ms. Hemlata Jaipurkar, Shri A.V.Bhide
Indrawati Rajndraprasad Gupta, Surendra Rajendraprasad Gupta, Mohan Rajendraparasad Gupta
State of Maharashtra, The Collector Buldhana, Sub Divisional Police Officer Khamgaon, Sub Divisional Officer Khamgaon, Deputy Collector Khamgaon, Naib Tahsildar Khamgaon, Dr. Prakash Narayandas Maloo
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging revisional order under Mamlatdar Courts' Act directing removal of obstruction on Government road.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the Sub Divisional Officer's order dated 20.06.2016 directing removal of obstruction.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were directed to remove obstruction on a Government road flowing through their land.
Previous Decisions
Tahsildar rejected application under Section 5 of Mamlatdar Courts' Act on 10.06.2015; Sub Divisional Officer set aside that order in revision on 20.06.2016.
Issues
Whether the Sub Divisional Officer erred in setting aside the Tahsildar's order and directing removal of obstruction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the road stopped at the end of their land and did not connect to respondent No.7's land.
Respondent No.7 argued that the Government road existed and petitioners created obstruction.
Ratio Decidendi
The existence of the Government road was not disputed and the obstruction was created by the petitioners. The revisional authority correctly set aside the Tahsildar's order which was based on an irrelevant consideration.
Judgment Excerpts
The fact that there existed a Government road flowing from North to South from the field Survey No. 624 is not in dispute...
The finding recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer that the petitioners have created obstruction in the Government road cannot be said to be erroneous.
Procedural History
Application under Section 5 of Mamlatdar Courts' Act filed by respondent No.7 before Tahsildar for removal of obstruction. Tahsildar rejected application on 10.06.2015. Respondent No.7 filed revision under Section 23(2) before Sub Divisional Officer, who allowed revision on 20.06.2016 directing removal of obstruction. Petitioners filed writ petition in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Mamlatdar Courts' Act, 1906: 5, 23(2)
