* 1* C.R.A 186/2003 28.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.186 OF 2003 Ramchandra Sharanappa Birajdar ] Age : Adult, Occ.: Agriculture ] R/o : Village Tirth, ] Applicant Taluka South Solapur, ] (Ori. appellant) District Solapur ] Vs. 1. Nagappa Malkappa Valsange ] R/o Village Tirth, ] Taluka South Solapur ] 2. Kashinath Shivanigappa Sonar ] R/o : C/o wife Sau Kamlabai ] Kashinath Sonar, ] Mother India Zopadpatti, ] Kumatha Naka, Solapur ] 3. Siddram Manik Sonar ] Respondents R/o : Block No. D-47, ] (Ori. respondents) New Santosh Nagar, Solapur ] Mr. G.S. Godbole, Advocate for applicant. Mr. M.V. Chougule h/f Mr. S.G. Kudle, Advocate for respondents. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. 28 September, 2010 * 2* C.R.A 186/2003 28.9.2010 P.C. :- 1. The revision application herein is directed against the order dated 19th October 2002 passed by the Additional Collector, Solapur in R.T.S. Revision Application No.9 of 2002. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows : . The revision applicant is the owner and occupier of agricultural land at Gat No.271/B, which falls in village Tirth. The respondents to the application are the owners and occupiers of the agricultural lands at gat No.366, 365/1 and 364/1 respectively, their lands falling in village Chapalgaon. The revision applicant and respondents no. 2 and 3 share a common boundary. The land of respondent no.1 is to the North of the land of respondent no.2. The western boundary of lands of respondents and the eastern boundary of land of revision applicant is the boundary of villages Tirth and Chapalgaon. On 22nd August 1996, respondent no.1 made an application to Talsildar, Akkalkot claiming that he had been enjoying an * 3* C.R.A 186/2003 28.9.2010 access to his agricultural land since the time of his great grand father over Gat No.271/B. This access was obstructed by the revision applicant by levelling and cultivating the land. He, therefore, requested the Tahsildar to take action under Mamletdar Court’s Act and remove the impediment from the access. The application came to be transferred to Tahsildar, South Solapur for hearing. The Tahsildar, South Solapur by his order dated 9th October 2000 treated the application of respondent no.1 as an application under Section 143 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and allowed the same holding that respondent no.1 did enjoy an access over the Bandh” “ between the land of revision applicant and lands of respondents no. 2 and 3, which access had been obstructed by the revision applicant. This order was challenged by the revision applicant by filing RTS Appeal No.20 of 2000 before the Sub Divisional Officer. The appeal came to be partly allowed by the order dated 30th November 2000. The appellate court held that the recourse to Section 143 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code by the Tahsildar was incorrect and the proceedings should have * 4* C.R.A 186/2003 28.9.2010 been conducted under Section 5 of Mamletdar Court’s Act. The revision applicant then filed second appeal being RTS Second Appeal No.3 of 2001 before the Additional Collector. The second appeal came to be decided by the order dated 30th June 2001, by which the directions of remand was set aside. Respondent no.1 then sought review of the order by filing RTS Revision Application No.12 of 2001. This was allowed by the Additional Collector vide his order dated 30th August 2001 directing remand of the application for re-hearing before Tahsildar, Akkalkot instead of the Tahsildar, South Solapur. This direction was not further challenged by any of the parties and hence became final. 2. The Tahsildar, Akkalkot held enquiry into the application filed by respondent no.1, carried out site inspection and after hearing both the sides passed his order dated 14h May 2002 allowing the application. He passed an order of injunction restraining the revision applicant from obstructing the access of respondent no.1 to his land from Chapalgaon Tar Road over the eastern bandh of revision applicants’ land and the western * 5* C.R.A 186/2003 28.9.2010 bandh of land of respondent nos. 2 and 3. He also directed the revision applicant to remove the wall constructed by the revision applicant causing obstruction to the access. The revision applicant then approached the Additional Collector, Solapur by filing RTS Revision Application No.9 of 2002. The Additional Collector by the order dated 19th October 2002 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of Tahsildar dated 14th May 2002. 3. The Tahsildar, as well as the Additional Collector, Solapur held that there was an access enjoyed by the respondent over the western Bandh of the land the appellant and the eastern Bandh of the land of respondents no.2 and 3 which was in the enjoyment of respondent no.1 over a long period of time and by way of prescription. The vendors of the appellant had made a statement during the enquiry that at the time of sale of the property to the appellant, they had informed him about the prescriptive right of access of respondent no.1 over the western bandh. The access was obstructed by the appellant by constructing permanent structure of Mahalaxmi Temple by the * 6* C.R.A 186/2003 28.9.2010 side of Chapalgaon tar road and a tin shed. The appellant has also constructed a stone wall 5 feet high and 40 feet long from the Chapalgaon Tar road on the western boundary of his land in order to block the access. 4. Mr. Godbole, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that, both the decisions are contrary to the panchanama dated 4th July 2000 drawn by Tahsildar, South Solapur while deciding the application by him. The panchanama dated 4th July 2000 records that on site inspection no cart road was found on the bandh and there was a Mahalaxmi temple on the boundary and that the Tahsildar could not have arrived at any conclusion as regards the existence of the cart way on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses alone. It has been next submitted that in his earlier order, the Additional Collector while deciding Second Appeal No.3 of 2001 held that there was an alternate road available from the eastern bandh of land bearing Gat No.365 and 364 to the property of respondent no.1. Lastly, it has been submitted by Mr. Godbole that the Additional Collector had expressed his * 7* C.R.A 186/2003 28.9.2010 view in the earlier order that the remedy for the respondent lied in filing a suit in the civil court for establishing his right of access over the property and not by preferring any applications either under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act or under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code Act. 5. Any enquiry under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code conducted by the Revenue Authorities earlier were wholly misconceived as the application filed by respondent no.1 was for removal of impediment under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act. Therefore, any findings given in the orders under those enquiries will have to be ignored. As regards the panchanama dated 4th July 2000, it is seen to be too cryptic. It does not even describe the location of Mahalaxmi Temple. In any case, while deciding the application, the Tahsildar, Akkalkot has conducted fresh site inspection and based his order on what he noticed at the site together with the statements of witnesses recorded as also the availability of alternate access. Both the authorities have come to the * 8* C.R.A 186/2003 28.9.2010 conclusion that there is no alternate access available to respondent no.1. The findings of fact recorded by the two authorities is a plausible view in the matter. By no stretch of imagination, the same can be said to be perverse so as to require any interference by this court. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J] * 9* C.R.A 186/2003 28.9.2010 (Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J.)