SSK/ 1 WP/6356.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6356 OF 2011 Mr. Vilas Rakhma Badwar ....Petitioner Versus Mr. Gorakh Vithal Badwar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Sanjiv Sawant with Mr. Ketan Joshi, Ms. Smita Waghmare and Ms. Archana Lad i/b. M/s. B. K. Barve & Co., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. D. Shinde, Advocate for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 15, 17 to 19. Mr. S. N. Bhosle, Advocate for respondent nos. 20 & 21. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 15, 17 to 19 and Mr. Bhosle, learned AGP for respondent nos. 20 & 21. 2. The petition arises out of proceedings under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Court Act (for short “the said Act”). By the order dated 29th April, 2010, the Tahisildar, at the instance of the petitioner directed respondents to remove obstructions from the alleged cart road between Gut Nos. 281 and 282, and further directed the respondents not to obstruct the petitioner’s vahivat on the said road to have access to land on Gut No.284. This order was reversed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in revision under Section 23 of the said Act. SSK/ 2 WP/6356.11 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer i/e. Revisional Authority after hearing learned counsel and perusal of the spot inspection sketch came to the conclusion that initially, there is cart road between Gut Nos. 281 & 282 up to the house of respondent no.1 situated in Gut No.282, and thereafter, there is a path way between Gut Nos. 281 & 282. The respondents have no objection, if this path way is used by the petitioner. However, their contention is that this path way cannot be converted into a cart way of 12 feet. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and also the spot inspection sketch drawn by the Tahsildar. The findings of the Sub-Divisional Officer are consistent with the spot inspection sketch. Similar findings are also given by the Tahsildar in his Order dated 29th April, 2010. Despite these findings, the Tahasildar made available the cart road of 12 feet throughout to the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer rightly set-aside the Tahsildar’s order. The petitioner’s right to have access to their land i.e. Gut No.284 through path way between Gut Nos.281 & 282 is not denied even by the respondents. The petitioners rights are also protected in this regard by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)