Kailas S/O Ganpat Wankhade Vs Arun S/O Shankarrao Kalaskar and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kailas S/O Ganpat Wankhade Vs Arun S/O Shankarrao Kalaskar and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed; the Tahsildar's order dated 10.11.2023 and the Sub Divisional Officer's order dated 13.09.2024 quashed and set aside; matter remitted back to the Tahsildar to consider the revenue map available on record or certified copy, and to decide afresh within eight weeks in view of the certified map obtained by the petitioner; parties directed to appear before the Tahsildar, Warud on 21.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m.; no orders as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders passed by the Tahsildar and confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer, which rest on a sketched map purporting to show a way to approach Survey No.185 between Survey No.186 and Survey No.179, were liable to be set aside as based on a patently erroneous map.

Court's answer

Perusal of the certified copy of the map shows that Survey No.186 and Survey No.179 are not adjacent to each other; Survey No.178 lies in between them, so the sketched map drawn by the Talathi/Tahsildar showing them as adjacent with a way in between was erroneous.

Ratio / Principle

Since the order passed by the Tahsildar (confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer) was founded on a patently erroneous map, it was liable to be set aside.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Kailas s/o Ganpat Wankhade v. Arun s/o Shankarrao Kalaskar & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 6407 of 2024, Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), decided 07.04.2025 by Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J.; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:3869] — Access-way dispute regarding approach to Survey No.185 (Mouza Wandali, Tah. Warud, Dist. Amravati). The Tahsildar and Sub Divisional Officer had inspected the spot and drawn sketches showing the way to Survey No.185 as running between Survey No.186 and Survey No.179, treating those two survey numbers as adjacent. On perusal of the certified copy of the mouza map placed on record, the Court found that Survey No.186 and Survey No.179 are NOT adjacent — Survey No.178 lies in between them — so the sketched map drawn by the Talathi/Tahsildar was patently erroneous. The Tahsildar's order dated 10.11.2023, as confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer's order dated 13.09.2024, being founded on that erroneous map, both orders were quashed and set aside. The matter was remitted to the Tahsildar, Warud to consider the revenue map on record or a certified copy and to decide afresh within eight weeks; parties were directed to appear on 21.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m. No orders as to costs. No statute or precedent was cited in the judgment.

2025:BHC-NAG:3869

Judgment

1 wp 6407-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 6407 OF 2024

Kailas s/o Ganpat Wankhade, Aged about 57 years, Occu. Agriculturist, R/o At Wandali, Post Godegaon, Tah. Warud, Distt. Amravati,

Mobile 7775887246 …. PETITIONER

// VERSUS //

Arun s/o Shankarrao Kalaskar Aged about 62 yrs, Occ. Agriculturist,

Vishnu s/o Shankarrao Kalaskar, Aged about 38 years, Occu. Agriculturist,

Bhomeshwar s/o Shankarrao Kalaskar, Aged about 60 years, Occu. Agriculturist,

Ghanshyam s/o Shankarrao Kalaskar, Aged about 55 years, occu. Agriculturist,

Ujjawala wd/o Hemraj Kalaskar, Aged about 42 years, Occu. Agriculturist,

Samiksha d/o Hemraj Kalaskar, Aged about 17 years, occu. Agriculturist,

All R. Nos. 1 to 6 are R/o At Wandali, Tah. Warud, Dist. Amravati.

Ganga w/o Bandupanth Kadu, Aged about 50 years, occu. Agriculturist, R/o At Goregaon, Tah. Warud,

Dist. Amravati.

Kalpana w/o Madhukar Satange, Aged about 45 years, Occu. Agriculturist, R/o At Ambada, Tah. Narkhed,

Dist. Nagpur.

Judgment

2 wp 6407-2024.odt

Sub-Divisional Officer, Morshi

Dist. Amravati

Nayab Tahsildar (Mamlatdar Court), Warud, Dist. Amravati ( R-9 and 10 added as per Courts order dated 26.03.2025)

…. RESPONDENTS

Smt. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner Shri M.A. Sable, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 8 Ms Deepa Charlewar, AGP for respondent Nos.9 and 10

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

DATED : 07.04.2025

(ORAL) JUDGMENT :

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

It appears that the Tahsildar as well as Sub Divisional Officer carried out inspection of the spot and drawn there own sketches for showing way to approach Survey No.185. However, map placed on record by the petitioner along with rejoinder, it appears that there is no way in between Survey No.186 and 179. However, the Talathi has shown the road in between Survey No.186 and 179 to approach Survey No.185. As such, sketched map drawn by the Talathi, appears to be incorrect positions of survey numbers. Survey No.186 and 179 are not adjacent nor there is any way shown passing through in between survey No.186 and 179. The Revenue Authorities are having land

Judgment

3 wp 6407-2024.odt

record and also map of Mouza Wandali of which certified copy is issued by the office.

On perusal of this map, it appears that there is some error in the sketched map drawn by the Talathi/Tahsildar. While drawing map, the Tahsildar shown way in between survey No.186 and survey No.179 and survey No.186 and survey No.179 are shown adjacent to each other. On the basis of that map, the Tahsildar passed an order even the Sub Divisional Officer confirmed the said order relying on that map. If certified copy of map produced on record is perused, it appears that survey No.186 and survey No.179 are not adjacent to each other. In between survey No.186 and survey No.179, there is survey No.178. Therefore, order passed on the basis of the map drawn patently erroneously and is liable to be set aside. As such, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) Both the orders passed by the Tahsildar dated 10.11.2023 and 13.09.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer are hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar to consider the revenue map available on record or certified copy if filed by the applicant in support of his contention with the Tahsildar.

Judgment

4 wp 6407-2024.odt

(iv) Parties to appear before the Tahsildar Warud, on 21.04.2025 at

11.00 a.m. parties are at liberty to submit their contentions.

(v) The Tahsildar is directed to consider afresh in view of the map of which certified copy is obtained by the petitioner herein.

(vi) The Tahsildar is hereby directed to decide afresh as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight weeks.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms. No

orders as to costs.

(SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

R.S. Sahare