wp4538­11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4538 OF 2011 Balu Maruti Hegadkar & Anr ..Petitioners versus Natha Umaji Takale & Ors ..Respondents Mrs.Poonam P. Bhosale for the petitioners. Mr.Prashant Jadhav i/by Gadkari & Associates for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P for respondent No.5. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15th July 2011. P.C.: . From perusal of the order under challenge, it is apparent that the Revisional Authority has rightly concluded that the predecessor in title of the 1st respondent, while transferring and selling the lands referred to in the Sale Deed, reserved for him the customary road and access as referred to therein. If the petitioner's claim that there was no wp4538­11.doc 2 such customary road or access as referred to in the Sale Deed and that the Sale Deed refers to some other land and road passing through the same, then, I am afraid that issue cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction. 2 The Revisional Authority having found, from materials on record, including the panchanama and Sale Deed in favour of the 1st respondent, that there was a road which was already existing and which was used by the predecessor in title of the vendors and it is that right which is made over and transferred to the 1st respondent, then, the remedy of the petitioner is to file a civil suit assailing the right, allegedly under the Sale Deed in favour of the 1st respondent. That remedy and adjudication thereunder is not affected by any observations and conclusions in the impugned order and not in the least by disinclination of this Court to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. With this clarification, the petition is dismissed but without any orders as to costs. wp4538­11.doc 3 (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)