IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MCA NO. 1091 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2197 OF 2010 (Nathabai Ramaji Wankhede through LR Gangadhar Ramaji Wankhede vs. Keshavrao Dhodkunji Somkuwar & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 24, 2010. Heard Shri A.B. Mirza, learned counsel for the applicants - petitioners, Shri R.J. Mirza, Advocate holding for Shri A.J. Mirza, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 & 3. For the reasons disclosed on personal affidavit of learned counsel for the applicants, the order dated 03.09.2010 are recalled and Writ Petition No. 2197 of 2010 is restored. WRIT PETITION NO. 2197 OF 2010 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Naib Tahsildar (Respondent No. 3) has exceeded jurisdiction inasmuch as he has declared the width of the road and has overlooked the fact that Respondent No. 1 has purchased adjacent land i.e. 24/8 and he can access 24/9 (land in dispute) through 24/8. It is his contention that field of the petitioners is very small and because of allocation of 10 feet wide land as way to Respondent No. 1, he is materially prejudiced. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Maruti Madhav, reported at 2002 (4) Mh. L.J. 73 (para 11) to contend that width of road could not have been declared by the authorities. The appreciation of evidence is also alleged to be perverse and erroneous. Shri R.J. Mirza and learned AGP are supporting the impugned order. It is apparent that the orders are concurrent and the authorities have specifically found that Respondent No. 1 has been using 10 feet wide road for access to his field 24/9 and that finding is based upon evidence adduced. The contention that because of subsequent purchase of field Survey No. 24/8, the other way has become available to Respondent No. 1, cannot be relevant in view of these findings. The authority has considered road and its width and the jurisdiction exercised is in terms of Section 24 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In reported judgment (supra) a certificate was issued by Tahsildar and it was not found in consonance with the Mamlatdar Courts Act and it was also noticed that the same came to be issued without any enquiry. The said judgment, therefore, has no application. I, therefore, do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.