1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.257/2011 PRAKASH KATKAR ..VS.. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 24, 2011. Heard Shri Tathod, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Bodade, the learned AGP for respondent no.1 & 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 25.10.2010, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant and directing the petitioner to file a fresh application seeking grant of way before the Tahsildar. It is necessary to note that the petitioner is not the owner of the land and his father – Shri Maroti Katkar was the owner of the land and hence the application before the Tahsildar ought to have been filed by Maroti Katkar and not the petitioner – Prakash Katkar. Moreover, it appears that though the petitioner had sought the right of way through the land belonging to the respondent no. 3 to 7, they were not joined as parties to the application filed by the petitioner/ Prakash Katkar before Tahsildar. In view of the aforesaid lacuna the S.D.O. rightly 2 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.3 to 7 as they were not afforded an opportunity of being heard before the order was passed by the Tahsildar and also because the application was filed by the petitioner, though the land was owned by the father of the petitioner. There is no error whatsoever in the order passed by the S.D.O. in asking the father of the petitioner to file a fresh application for grant of way before the Tahsildar and to join the respondent no.3 to 7 as parties to the application. The order appears to be just and proper and cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP