1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5534 OF 2008 Dagdu s/o Deorao Tayade ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mrs. Usha P. Kale, advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.J. Ghute, Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mrs. A. N. Ansari, advocate for respondent No.4 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 17TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This petition takes exception to the order dated 16.7.2008 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner in Case No. ROR/A/91/2007 thereby confirming the judgment and order dated 19.1.2007 passed by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad in case No. 2006/Appeal/MAM/ Court Act/3 and the judgment and order passed by the Tahsildar, Sillod in file No. 2004/Jama-2/Kavi/548, dated 25.2.2005. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my 2 attention to the grounds raised in the petition and also to the operative part of the order passed by Tahsildar Sillod and submitted that the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner at page 44 of the compilation of the writ petition that is the part of his reasoning, it is observed that , “ After perusing old village map it reveals that the Tahsildar has correctly passed the order by allowing the respondent to approach the main road from the Bandh of Gat No.907.” Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the observations of the learned Commissioner are not in consonance with the decision given by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar has directed the petitioner to create a road nearby the Gat No.907 for the use of the respondent and Additional Commissioner in his judgment has observed that the respondents to approach the main road from the Bandh of Gat No. 907. 3 I have heard learned counsel for both parties. On perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Tahsildar and the Additional Commissioner, it appears that there is variance in recording the factual situation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is right in contending that as per the observations of the Additional Commissioner that the respondent to approach the main road from the Bandh of Gat No.907. The petitioner has no objection to it. Learned counsel therefore, would submit that the objection is to the direction to the Tahsildar to create way nearby Gat No.907 for the use of the 3 respondent. According to the learned counsel, if respondent is allowed to approach to the main road only through the Bandh of Gat No.907, she has no objection for the same and the writ petition can be disposed of accordingly. 4 In the above circumstances, without entering into the merits and demerits of the matter, it is clarified that as observed by the Additional Commissioner that the respondent is entitled to approach the main road only by way of Bandh of Gat No.907. 5 With these clarifications, no interference is called for in the judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.