-: 1 :- wp-4907/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4907 OF 2011 Maruti K. Khaladkar & Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus Vasundhara D. Kharade & Ors. ..Respondents. Avinash B. Avhad for the petitioners. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh & Prashant Patil for R-1 & 2. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for R-3. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : August 22, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The petition arises out of the proceeding under section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906. Admittedly, the petitioners are owners of Gat No. 119 and respondent nos. 1 & 2 are owners of Gat No. 118. There is no dispute that the predecessor-in-tittle of the respondents were having access to their land from Gat No. 119. The Petitioner ploughed access [road], and, therefore respondents were constrained to approach Tehsildar under section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Act, 1906. Tehsildar rejected this application on the ground that the respondents are also co- owners of Gat No.116 and therefore they can have access from that land. The respondents preferred an revision before the SDO. srp -: 2 :- wp-4907/11 By the order impugned in this writ petition, SDO allowed the revision and granted injunction in favour of the respondents directing the petitioners to remove the obstruction and keep open the road in question to have the respondents access to their land bearing Gat No. 118. 2. Mr. Avhad, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that injunction could not have been granted in view of the provision contained in Clause-(a) of Section 5(1) of the Mamlatdar’s Act, 1906. He also submitted that since respondents can have alternative arrangement for access to their land, the impugned order is not justified. I do not see any merit in both the objections. Perusal of Clause-(a) of Section 5(1) of the Mamlatdar’s Act, 1906 makes it abundantly clear that Mamlatdar has power to issue injunction requiring the party to remove obstruction. So far as the alleged alternative access available to the respondents is concerned, in my view, that cannot be a ground to refuse the relief to the respondents. Admittedly, their predecessors-in-title were having access to their land from the petitioners’ land. There is no dispute that this access was obstructed by the petitioners, and therefore, in my view, the SDO was justified in passing the order. The impugned order is passed within the parameters laid down in Clause-(a) of Section 5(1) of -: 3 :- wp-4907/11 the Mamlatdar’s Act, 1906. In the light of these facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. (RANJIT MORE, J.)