The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal against a trial court order mandating demolition of a petitioner's wall obstructing a public road. The Court held that factual findings could not be interfered with under Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-NAG:7941
927-cwp-64-24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.64 OF 2024
Harish S. Panjwani ...Petitioner Versus Gopichand G. Balwani & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. P.S. Chawhan for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 24 JULY 2024.
PC:-
. This petition takes exception to the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bhandara in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2023.
“1. It may be declared that plaintiffs have acquired customary easementory right to approach disputed land from ring road, through disputed way, as shown in plaint map.
2. It may be declared that construction of defendant on portion of disputed public road in an area of 40.50 m2 (450 ft2 ); as shown by red colour in plaint map, affecting the right of way as well as customary easementory right to disputed land of plaintiffs, is illegal and unauthorised.
3. Consequently, by passing decree of mandatory injunction, defendant may be directed to demolish entire construction on an area of 40.50 m2 (450 ft2 ) of disputed road, and to restore position of public road, so as to have hurdle less ingress and egress on disputed land from disputed way.
1/3
Dinesh S. Sherla
927-cwp-64-24.doc
4. It may be ordered (in case mandatory temporary injunction as prayed is not granted) that if defendant fails to comply with the decree of mandatory injunction within period of a month from the date of decree, the obstruction caused by defendant by way of construction will be removed at the cost of defendant.
5. After the demolition of construction, owing to the decree of mandatory injunction, defendant, his agents, successors, servants or anybody claiming through him may permanently be restrained from obstructing right of way of plaintiffs from disputed way to reach disputed land, by making construction or by any other manner.
6. Cost of the suit may be saddled on defendant.
7. Any other relief deems fit in the circumstances may be granted in favour of plaintiffs.”
2/3
Dinesh S. Sherla
927-cwp-64-24.doc
to approach to their field and would not be able to cultivate their field. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that disputed road is not a public road. However, it is well settled that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the finding of fact cannot be interfered with. The petition is dismissed.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.)
3/3
Dinesh S. Sherla
Signed by: DINESH SHERLA Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 25/07/2024 14:40:29
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction can interfere with the finding of fact by the trial court that the disputed road is a public road.
Harish S. Panjwani
Gopichand G. Balwani
N. R. Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
