Dismissed

Popat Akaram Shinde and Ors. v. Anil Ananda Chougule and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2024WP/3023/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the S.D.O.'s order under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906, which set aside the Mamlatdar's direction to remove an obstruction to a way. The High Court held that existence of a way must rest on revenue records under the MLR Code, which were absent, only a Panchanama having been relied on, and declined to interfere.

What the court decided

AI extract

Popat Akaram Shinde and Ors. vs Anil Ananda Chougule and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

916-WP-3023-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3023 OF 2024

¶4

Popat Akaram Shinde And Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Anil Ananda Chougule and Ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Ramesh V. Taur for the Petitioners. Mr. P. G. Sawant, A.G.P. for the Respondent – State. Mr. Tukaram Shendge i/by Mr. Pratap Patil for the Respondents.

¶6

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 19^th JULY 2024

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Heard Mr. Ramesh Taur, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶9

The petition question dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 by which the order dated 14.01.2022 by the Mamlatdar directing removal of the obstruction, to the way has been set aside.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners taking exception to

¶11

the order dated 19.12.2023, submits that since the way is in

¶12

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2024.07.19 14:25:45 +0530

1 of 2

Sajakali Jamadar

916-WP-3023-2024.doc

existence, the removal of the obstruction as directed by the learned Mamlatdar was correct and ought not to have been interfered by the learned S.D.O. When a query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners to point out any document under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLR Code), in which the existence of way was recorded in the revenue records, he fairly admits that there is no such document. All that is considered by the learned Mamlatdar is the Panchanama to hold, that the way was in existence. In my considered opinion, the existence of a way has to be decided on the basis of entries in the revenue records/plains/maps, maintained under the provision of the MLR Code, which are absent in this matter, on account of which, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned S.D.O. The petition is therefore dismissed.

¶17

Needless to say that this does not shut off the right of the petitioners, under Section 143 of the MLR Code, in case he satisfies Tahsildar of the necessity.

¶18

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶19

2 of 2

¶20

Sajakali Jamadar

Popat Akaram Shinde and Ors. v. Anil Ananda Chougule and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Popat Akaram Shinde and Ors. v. Anil Ananda Chougule and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Madhumalti Dafre, vs the State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Co-Op. Dept.

Ram Vks ( Vikas ) Seva Sanstha Maryadit Nangnur vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ministry for Co. Operation and Ors.

Shree Sadguru and Deluxe Jv vs Rekha Gupta and Ors.

Shri. Kutch Deshiya Saraswat Brahmin Mahasthan Trust vs Joint Charity Commssioner Ho II the. Gp

M/S. Ashoka Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra , Public Works Project Div. World Bank Project Div. Pune

Jalindar Shankar More Thr Poa Prakash Jalinder More and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.