wp5684.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.5684/2011 Dattatraya Yeshwanta Gayakwad and others -vs- Sanjay Wamanrao Gayakwad and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S. V. Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioners. Mrs. Bodade, AGP for the respondent Nos.2 to 5. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 08.12.2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Additional District Collector on 23/03/2009 reversing the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer directing the respondent No.1 to fill the pits, which according to the petitioner were illegally dug by the respondent No.1 on the government road. The petitioner also challenges the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 20th of July, 2011 upholding the order of the Additional Collector and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. On a perusal of the impugned orders and the report of the Tahsildar on which the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer had based their findings in regard to the illegal digging of the pit by the respondent No.1 on government land, it appears that the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner did not commit any error in holding that the wp5684.11.odt 2/3 Naib Tahsildar's report did not disclose that the government road was either encroached by the respondent No.1 or the respondent No.1 illegally dug the pits on the government road. Both the authorities, therefore, rightly held that the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer erroneously relied on the report of the Naib Tahsildar which was not favourable to the case of the petitioners. The authorities further held that though it appeared from the roznama dated 17/06/2008 that the matter was to be fixed for evidence on 24/06/2008, by scoring and overwriting, the word “evidence” was converted to word “order” and the matter was hurriedly fixed for order on 24/06/2008. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the matter should be remanded in this case to the Tahsildar to afford an opportunity to the respondent No.1 to tender evidence is liable to be rejected as the respondent No.1 has succeeded before the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner and the spot inspection note does not show any encroachment or illegal digging of pits by the respondent No.1. The findings recorded by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner are pure findings of facts which call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE wp5684.11.odt 3/3 KHUNTE