1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 341 OF 1991 Bapurao Sunderrao Magar ... APPELLANT (Orig.Plaintiff) VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Parbhani. 2) The Tahsildar, Pathri. 3) Pandurang Ramrao Nirval ... RESPONDENTS (orig. Defendants.) ***** Mr.S.S.Bora, Advocate for Appellant; ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 10 th June, 2009. JUDGMENT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. Learned APP absent. 2) The concurrent findings recorded against the 2 plaintiff is subject of challenge in the Second Appeal. The appeal while was admitted on 30 th July, 1991, no substantial law was formulated. It is seen, there is interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B) in favour of the appellant/plaintiff whereby the existing dimensions of the road are not to be reduced. 3) The controversy between the plaintiff and Respondent No.3 – Pandurang revolves to the access which has caused even inconvenience to others, who were passers on the road. The road was passing from the alleged portion of plaintiff from southern side. The plaintiff apprehends that the defendant nos. 1 and 2, i.e. The State authorities, were in a bid to erect a road from southern side of his land, and for that purpose they were required to take police assistance. The learned Judge, on analyzing the evidence, found that there was no attempt to create new cart track from southern side of Survey No. 71 as there was already such cart track as per the village map, which was in use by the villagers including adjoining owner. The contention of the plaintiff was mere apprehension, thereby he wanted to avoid movement of villagers. The same having been negatived, there remains no merit in the matter. The plaintiff could not establish that there was no road or access as the record 3 indicated in the old village map there was such road to be used by the passers. Second Appeal sans merit, it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/office/sa341.91