1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7158 OF 2010 Shri Ganpat Shankar Jadhav, & 5 ors Petitioners Vs Sub Divisional Officer Maval and 4 ors. Respondents Shri Rahul Kadam, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.S.Talkute, Advocate for respondent no.3. Shri S.D.Rayrikar, AGP, for respondent nos 1,2 and 5. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 18/07/2011 PC: 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed on 23.8.2010 in RTS/Revision/ SR/11/2009 and the order passed on 20.3.2009 by the Tahasildar. 2. The proceedings are under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act,1906. 3. It is contended by the petitioners that respondent nos 3 to 5 had made an application purporting to be an application under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act,1906. However, a perusal of that application, a copy of which is enclosed to the writ petition at page 30, would show that the same does not speak of any existing road or obstruction thereto. On the other, it prays that T 2 the road be carved out and made available to the respondents. Such an application cannot be treated as plaint under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act,1906 and even if the procedure is informal the authorities could not have assisted respondent nos 3 to 5. Further, the road which has now been directed to be provided, cannot be made available because there are in all 35 trees which would have either to be removed or cut. In such circumstances when there are alternate roads so as to have access to their property, the impugned orders could not have been made and they are totally unsustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, Mr Talkute appearing for respondent nos 3 to 5, has supported the impugned order on the basis that the claim made by respondent nos 3 to 5 is with regard to obstruction of the existing road. That such an obstruction was caused is clear from the criminal case filed by the parties. In that criminal case an understanding was reached which was duly recorded and that is a road will be made available to respondent nos 3 to 5. Further, there are civil suits which have also been preferred and there is a decree therein. In such circumstances, to now argue that the application itself is not maintainable, is erroneous. For all these reasons, it is submitted that the petition be dismissed. 5. In the light of rival contentions, this court had issued notice and an affidavit has been filed by the Tahasildar. The 3 Tahasildar states that the application, which was made by respondent nos 3 to 5, may not have been in the prescribed format and cannot be termed as a plaint but even informal petition can be treated as plaint in term of section 8 of the Act. With a view to assist the parties and finding that the application contains thumb impression that the Tahasildar treated this application as plaint under the Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906, invoking his power under section 5. The road was already in existence was the case pleaded by respondent nos 3 to 5. Therefore, the Naib Tahasildar and the Circle Officer visited the spot and made the report. They recorded the detailed statement of Jaganath Vithoba Jadhav. That statement was recorded on 26.2.2009. The statement refers to a common well in Gat No.21 and for reaching the said well one has to pass through the boundary of Gat nos 25 and 24 and then by the northern boundary of Gat Nos.24 and 20. The petitioners objected to the said road. They pointed out that there is a road sufficiently wide and that a tractor can pass from Gat No.19. However, the record indicates that even that road has been obstructed. It is clear that there were proceedings earlier between the parties. There is a reference to a criminal case and even if the understanding therein may not have been accepted by the civil court, yet, in the affidavit filed by the Tahasildar in the writ petition there is a reference made to the earlier round which 4 culminated in the order dated 22.2.1996. Thus, Jagannath Jadhav has been complaining that the present petitioners are not allowing him access to Gat No.26. Hence, independent of the criminal and civil proceedings, an inquiry was conducted and after the spot inspection, recording of the statements and submission of the report, that exercise has been completed. The concurrent finding is that there was a road in existence which has been obstructed by the petitioners. That finding is consistent with the material placed on record. Merely because the application made by respondent nos 3 to 5 had some erroneous statements, yet, the substance thereof has been taken into account and considering the language of section 8 of the Act parties have been assisted by the Mamlatdar. To my mind, such exercise in this case cannot be said to be making out some sort of road for respondent nos 3 to 5 when none was in existence. The existing road is directed to be opened and it should remain unobstructed is the direction. That requires no interference in writ jurisdiction as it is consistent with the material produced before the authorities. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 5