It cannot be disputed that local Revenue Authorities may record
finding as per their provisional inquiry and observations on the basis of modes such as spot inspection, inventory, inquiry into area etc.
They cannot like competent Civil court conclusively decide legal rights agitated by the parties because legal right could be decided upon evidence recorded by the competent Civil Court, unless it's
jurisdiction is barred by any law. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners rightly relied on the judgment in the case of Pandurang Chandrabhan Bauche and antoher v. Jalindhar Sarandhar Tupe and others reported
in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 467
It is held that Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 confers independent right
on an owner of an agricultural land to claim right of way for having reasonable access to his field. That right is not dependent
upon proof of an easement, whether by way of necessity or by way of prescription as provided under the Easements Act. Section 143
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code confers a special right,
only on the holder of agricultural lands as distinguished from an easementary right which is available if established according to
law both for agricultural as well as urban properties. The observations in the case of Pandurang Chandrabhan Bauche and y
antoher v. Jalindhar Sarandhar Tupe and others reported in
2009(3) Mh.L.J.467 would indicate that to enforce the legal right under Easementary Act, the party would have to approach
competent Civil Court to get the legal right decided. The rights which are available under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
are statutorily available provisional rights which holder of the agricultural land may claim as provisional arrangement until the real controversy between the parties is conclusively decided by the competent Civil Court. If the claimant of the right of way is
recorded tenure holder and there is prima facie title in him, the local revenue authority may on the basis of the preliminary inquiry
and spot inspection etc. allow the right claimed provisionally but the claimant interested in declaration as to his legal right and
enforcement thereof has to file a civil suit for final and conclusive decision as to the declaration, possession etc. in respect of civil
rights claimed by him unless of course when the Civil Court's
jurisdiction is excluded statutorily by express or implied bar.
Bombay High Court
Harichandra Pundlik Ughade v State of Maharashtra on 24 June, 2013
Bench: A.P. Bhangale
Citation;2013 (6) MH L J 820
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel h
for the parties. ig
2) The petitioner No.1 claims that he had purchased H
agricultural land Gat No.282/2, situated at Mouza Rasa, Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal from legal heirs of Bapurao Wararkar on y
20/08/2001 under registered sale deed. According to the ba
petitioners, it was for the first time on 09/07/2004 respondent No. 6 Sou.Nirmala Baburao Turankar had obstructed petitioners' right om
of way enjoyed by the petitioners, since the date of their registered sale deed dated 20/08/2001. Therefore, instead of quarreling with B
the said lady, the petitioners claiming right of way had approached Revenue Authorities i.e. Tahsildar, Wani, District Yavatmal. On 19/03/2005, Naib Tahsildar Wani heard Revenue Case No. 1/RTW/2004-05 and passed order dated 19/03/2005 granting 4½ feet wide right of way using the boundary of adjacent land bearing ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2013 19:13:05 ::: 2406wp849.12-Judgment 3/8 rt
Field Survey Nos.316 and 317, as claimed by the petitioners. The respondent No.6 had challenged the said order by preferring ou
Appeal No.2/ RTS-64/2004-05 whereby the order passed by Naib Tahsildar, Wani was confirmed. Another appeal was filed by C
respondent No.6 before the Additional Collector, Yavatmal, who had also in Revenue Appeal No.8/ BND-56/2005-06, confirmed h
the orders passed by Naib Tahsildar, Wani as well as Sub-Divisional ig
Officer, Wani. In revision the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, however, set aside all the three orders which H
were passed in favour of the petitioners granting the right of way. y
3) Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to my ba
notice that the suit land Gat No.282/2 was one of the sub-division of the agricultural land old Survey No.116. Under these om
circumstances, it is claimed that the petitioners had right of way to approach Gat No.282/2 the sub-division of land old Survey No. B
116 by using Rasa-Suknegaon Shiv Road and then by use of the boundary of Gat Nos.317 and 316 to reach their field. 4) This way was granted by Revenue Authorities after the due inquiry, but the Additional Commissioner, Amravati ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2013 19:13:05 ::: 2406wp849.12-Judgment 4/8 rt
Division, Amravati, who decided Revision No.476/BND -56/2006-07, made observations as follows:- ou
"It is seen from the record of Naib Tahsildar, Wani that C
it granted 4½ feet road from the dhura (boundary) of Field Gat No.317 and Gat No.308 (2½ feet on each side) of dhura h
prohibiting of dhura, but Field Gat No.308 is not adjoining to Gat ig
No.317, but is adjoining to Gat Nos.386 and 117. It appears that the Naib Tahsildar passed the order without application of mind. H
However, it is seen that Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani had also failed to look into the legal position and further extended the y
passing road by converting it into the bullock cart road. However, ba
the authorities below without perusing the map passed the orders, which shows the convenience in favour of the respondents." om
Then it is observed -
"Before concluding, it is further seen from the record B
that there is a field of respondent No.6 on the western side of Suknegaon-Rasa road and further the said new road running from Gat No.317 clearly shows that the authorities below protected the interest of the respondents. Therefore, after perusing the existing ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2013 19:13:05 ::: 2406wp849.12-Judgment 5/8 rt
map and record, it shows that the boundary of Gat Nos.316 and 317 is intact and Field Gat No.208 is altogether different, which is ou
adjoining to Gat No.282."
C
It appears that the Additional Commissioner further observed that the Sub-Divisional Officer has also without application h
of mind decided the appeal and confirmed the orders passed by the authority below. Thus, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the ig
Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati proceeded to H
allow the revision on the ground claiming that it is decided on merits by setting aside the order passed by Additional Collector, Yavatmal. y
It cannot be disputed that local Revenue Authorities may record ba
finding as per their provisional inquiry and observations on the basis of modes such as spot inspection, inventory, inquiry into area etc. om
They cannot like competent Civil court conclusively decide legal rights agitated by the parties because legal right could be decided upon evidence recorded by the competent Civil Court, unless it's B
jurisdiction is barred by any law. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners rightly relied on the judgment in the case of Pandurang Chandrabhan Bauche and antoher v. Jalindhar Sarandhar Tupe and others reported ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2013 19:13:05 ::: 2406wp849.12-Judgment 6/8 rt
in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 467
. It is held that Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 confers independent right ou
on an owner of an agricultural land to claim right of way for having reasonable access to his field. That right is not dependent C
upon proof of an easement, whether by way of necessity or by way of prescription as provided under the Easements Act. Section 143 h
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code confers a special right, ig
only on the holder of agricultural lands as distinguished from an easementary right which is available if established according to H
law both for agricultural as well as urban properties. The observations in the case of Pandurang Chandrabhan Bauche and y
antoher v. Jalindhar Sarandhar Tupe and others reported in ba
2009(3) Mh.L.J.467 would indicate that to enforce the legal right under Easementary Act, the party would have to approach om
competent Civil Court to get the legal right decided. The rights which are available under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code B
are statutorily available provisional rights which holder of the agricultural land may claim as provisional arrangement until the real controversy between the parties is conclusively decided by the competent Civil Court. If the claimant of the right of way is ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2013 19:13:05 ::: 2406wp849.12-Judgment 7/8 rt
recorded tenure holder and there is prima facie title in him, the local revenue authority may on the basis of the preliminary inquiry ou
and spot inspection etc. allow the right claimed provisionally but the claimant interested in declaration as to his legal right and C
enforcement thereof has to file a civil suit for final and conclusive decision as to the declaration, possession etc. in respect of civil h
rights claimed by him unless of course when the Civil Court's ig
jurisdiction is excluded statutorily by express or implied bar. H
6) On considering the fact that the petitioners had claimed access to agricultural land Gat No.282/2 via Rasa- y
Suknegaon road and thus by using dhura-boundary-of Gat Nos. ba
317 and 316 to reach their agricultural land Gat No.282/2. This right of way claimed by the petitioners and allowed by the ladder om
of three revenue authorities, barring the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, ought to continue as provisional B
arrangement till petitioners approach competent Civil Court and get the controversy decided finally and conclusively by judgment and order of the competent Civil Court. 7) In the aforesaid background, the order passed by ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2013 19:13:05 ::: 2406wp849.12-Judgment 8/8 rt
Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati is quashed and set aside. The order granting provisional right of way in ou
favour of the petitioners shall continue till the final conclusive decision by the competent Civil Court. Suffice it to say that the C
conclusive decision based on merits according to law by the competent Civil Court which has attained finality shall be binding. h
ig
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment