and the petitioners-opponents have obstructed the said way. The learned Tahsildar, has carried out the spot inspection on 26.11.2014 and observed that though there is cart way to some extent near to the land Gat Nos. 53 and 53/2A/3 and 53/2A/2 thereafter, the foot way appears on the bandh of land Gat No. 53/2A/1 and 53/1 and there are standing mango trees and jujube (Bor) trees, aged 12 years and 25 to 30 years, respectively, on the said Bandh. It has also been specifically noted in the spot inspection that the breadth of the said bandh is 2.5 to 3 feet. The learned Tahsildar, has therefore, observed that there is no cart way in existence as claimed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the same is not probable due to the standing old trees on the Bandh. Learned counsel submits that though the learned Tahsildar has rejected the application, learned Sub Divisional Officer has partly allowed Revision No. 12 of 2016 and remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar for no reason. The learned counsel submits that the Sub Divisional Officer has made incorrect observations in the impugned order. Even though the Tahsildar has carried out spot inspection and the same is also not disputed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 original applicants, learned Sub Divisional Officer has observed that the Tahsildar has not carried out spot inspection as contemplated under the provisions of section 19(2) of Mamlatdar Courts Act 1906. Learned counsel submits that the Sub Divisional Officer has not at all considered the standing
