1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5364 OF 2007 Mr. Harishchandra Patil ..... Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents. ----- Mr. J.A. Udaipuri for the petitioner. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 15th February 2008. P.C.: 1. The principal relief which the Petitioner claims in this Petition is direction to the revenue authorities to remove the occupants from the access road of the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer has already made an order dated 12/07/2005 for removal of the obstruction created by one Balkrishna Chintaman Patil and, according to the learned Counsel, therefore, we should make an order directing the Sub-Divisional Officer to implement his order. The effect of issuance of writ claimed by the petitioner would be that the said Balkrishna Chintaman Patil would be removed from the land but the Petitioner has chosen not to join the said Balkrishna Chintaman Patil as a respondent in the Petition. In our opinion, he was a necessary party to the Petition. What is further to be seen is that though the 2 order dated 12/07/2005 shows that the Petitioner has made a complaint to the Tahsildar that his access has been blocked by the said Balkrishna Chintaman Patil, the order shows that the Sub-Divisional Officer has made the order for resumption of the land on the basis of report submitted by Tahsildar where Tahsildar found that the said Balkrishna Chintaman Patil has committed breach of the conditions on which the land was granted to him. From the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer, it is not clear whether the Tahsildar found that the complaint made by the petitioner that his access has been blocked by Balkrishna Chintaman Patil was justified or not. The petitioner has chosen not to place the report of Tahsildar on record on the basis of which order has been made by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 2. We find that the Petition involves several disputed questions of facts. It also suffers from non-joinder of necessary party and, therefore, the Petition cannot be entertained. it is rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 3