1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2899 of 2009 1. Raghunath s/o Nagoji Bhuyar, Aged about 70 years, Occupation : Agriculturist. 2. Bhaurao s/o Shivram Thakre, Aged about 65 years, Occupation : Agriculturist. 3. Wasudeo s/o Mahadeo Bhuyar, Aged about 51 years, Occupation : Agriculturist. All residents of Wadala, Tahsil Warud, District Amravati. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sub-Divisional Office, Morshi, Tahsil Morshi, District Amravati. 2. Pralhad s/o Krushnarao Deshmukh, Aged about 73 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o Wadala, Tahsil Warud, District Amravati. ... Respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri D.S. Wasnik, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri T.R. Kankale, AGP for R- 1. Shri P.A. Gode, Advocate for R- 2. 2 Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 8 th September, 2009 1. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Morshi, whereby he set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar on 1-7-2008 in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act. 2. The petitioners seem to have filed an application before the Mamlatdar claiming that they have got a right of way along dhura of field survey nos.137 and 139 belonging to respondent No.2, though the application itself does not clarify the survey numbers, etc. The Tahsildar, by his order dated 15-12-2007, allowed the application on the basis of spot inspection. This order was challenged by respondent No.2 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who set aside the same by order dated 30-4-2008. He had specifically observed that the Tahsildar had not complied with the requirements of Sections 7 and 9 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, and had, therefore, remanded the matter back for a fresh enquiry. This order of remand was challenged before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2723 of 2008. However, it seems that before the said writ petition could be decided, the Tahsildar had passed a fresh order upon remand and, 3 therefore, respondent No.2 was allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a revision before the Sub-Divisional officer. Accordingly, respondent No.2 filed a revision before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar upon remand. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, by his impugned order, has observed that the matter had been first remanded for complying with the requirements of Sections 7 and 9 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act. In spite of this, even upon a remand, the Tahsildar again came to the same conclusion by his order dated 1-7-2008. He had simply observed that there was compliance to the provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act. He should have seen that he was dealing with a suit in the Mamlatdar Court and should have disposed of the matter accordingly. In view of this, it cannot be said that the Sub-Divisional Officer erred in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. 4. Apart from this, the petitioners seem to have claimed right of way through the two fields of respondent No.2 without showing as to what was their right, except on the basis of 4 the recitals in a sale-deed dated 12-12-1986 to which respondent No.2 was not a party. It is further seen from the village map, which is filed at page 55 of the compilation, that the field of one of the petitioners is just adjacent to gaothan. In spite of this, it is not clear as to why the petitioners want to insist on going through the two fields – survey nos.137 and 139 – of respondent No.2. The Sub-Divisional Officer has rightly observed that the path in question has not been shown in 7/12 extract. If the petitioners want to seek an easement, they should have gone to the Civil Court. This does not appear to be a case of right of way recognized in the revenue record being blocked by respondent No.2. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners, who has the energy and zeal to ensure that no part of his argument should be missed, sought to rely on a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Dana Ram and others v. Civil Judge (J.D.) and others, reported at AIR 2004 Rajasthan 307, about the declaration of easement. This judgment has no bearing on the dispute in question. 6. There was no question of invoking jurisdiction of the revenue authorities and if the petitioners had any grievance or wanted to seek an easement, they ought to have 5 approached a competent Court. 7. Thus, the petition has no merit. It is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. pdl