(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1657 OF 2011 Prakash s/o. Dhanu Patil, Age : 51 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Dhamodi, Taluka : Raver, District : Jalgaon, at present R/o. Plot No.20, Dattaraya Nagar, Raver, .. Petitioner District : Jalgaon. (Original respondent) versus Jagannath s/o. Nana Patil, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Dhamodi, Taluka : Raver, District : Jalgaon, .. Respondents and 6 others. (Original applicants) ....................... Mr. M.K. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.6 and 7. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9TH MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. M.K. Deshpande, appearing for the petitioner, and learned AGP Mr. D.R. Korde, appearing for respondent nos.6 and 7. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31-1-2011, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusawal Sub- Division, Bhusawal, in Wahiwat Revision No. 11/2010 and the order dated 5-10-2010, passed by the Tahsildar, Raver, in Wahiwat Case No. 6/2010. 3. Application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906, for removal of obstruction in their way, filed by the respondents / original applicants, has been allowed by the Tahsildar and the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 4. Adv. Mr. M.K. Deshpande contends that the lands of respondents and petitioner are from different villages and hence the way as claimed cannot be granted. In the alternative and (3) without prejudice, he invites attention to map placed on record to urge that there is alternate way available. He attempts to point out that Tahsildar during spot inspection noticed that way but found that it was obstructed / encroached and hence could not have been used. 5. I have perused relevant papers with the assistance of the learned Counsel. The arguments advanced are totally irrelevant. The provisions of Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act contemplate removal of obstruction on a way being used. Whether there is any alternate way or not or then, two fields are situated in different villages or not, are totally irrelevant facts for the said purposes. 6. As I do not see any jurisdictional error perversity, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1657