1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3068 OF 2011 Vinod Manikrao Narwade Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Amravati & other .......................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders .......................................................................................................................................... Mr. Anand Deshpande, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. N.R. Saboo , Adv. for the Caveator/respondent no.5. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 29th JULY, 2011. 1] This petition takes exception to the order dated 28.4.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, by which order the revision application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. The controversy involved in the present case is as regards the right of way claimed by the petitioner through survey no. 289 i.e. owned by respondent no. 5 herein to the petitioner's field in survey no. 281 and 291. The claim of the petitioner is that there is a way through the field of the respondent from 'Saikhed to Daheli Pandhan Rasta'. The petitioner filed an application under section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code which came to be allowed by the Tahsildar by his order dated 3.12.2009. Prior thereof, the Tahsildar had directed the Circle Inspector to submit report. Accordingly, the Circle Inspector has submitted his report dated 7.9.2009. It was .....2/- 2 stated by the Circle Inspector that on the road shown by the petitioner there are standing crop of the respondent no. 5 and that some portion of it is also constructed upon. The Tahsildar considering the said report allowed the said application filed by the petitioner by his order dated 3.12.2009. The Tahsildar directed the respondent No. 5 to remove the obstruction in the said way. 2] Being aggrieved by the said order dated 3.12.2009, respondent no. 5 filed appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 6.4.2010 rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar. The respondent no.5 thereafter filed a further appeal before the Additional Collector, Yavatmal, which came to be allowed by the Additional Collector, Yavatmal, by his order dated 24.11.2010. The Additional Collector took into consideration the report submitted by the Talathi dated 9.6.2009 wherein the said Talathi has mentioned that the way 'Saikheda to Daheli Pandhan Rasta' is closed. The Additional Collector, therefore, observed that the petitioner herein was claiming a way which was not available since long back and if the petitioner, as can be seen from the application, was seeking the removal of some obstruction then the petitioner has to approach the Mamlatdar's Court under the Mamlatdar Courts Act for removal of the said obstruction within the period prescribed in the said Act. The appellate authority also held that the petitioner would have to first establish that there was a right of way through the field of the respondent no. 5. The appellate authority .....3/- 3 accordingly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no. 5 by the said order dated 28.4.2011. The petitioner thereafter took the matter in revision under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The said revision application came to be heard by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and by the impugned order dated 28.4.2011 the said revision came to be dismissed. 3] It is sought to be contended by the petitioner that both the Additional Collector as well as the Additional Commissioner have erred in observing that the petitioner would have to approach the Mamlatdar's Court for removal of the obstruction. According to the learned counsel, the authorities failed to take into consideration that the petitioner had approached the Tahsildar under section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In my view, the said contention cannot be countenanced. It is required to be noted that in the application itself the petitioner, has in unequivocal terms stated that he claims a right of way through field of respondent no. 5 and is not claiming a right of way through any boundary. Moreover, it is the case of the petitioner that obstruction has been allegedly created by the respondent no.5. If that be so, then the authorities were right in holding that the remedy, if any, of the petitioner was to approach the Mamlatdar's Court under the Mamlatdar Courts Act for redressal of his grievance. 4] Having perused the impugned orders passed by the Additional Collector as well as the Additional .....4/- 4 Commissioner, in my view, the reasons cited by the authorities below for rejecting the petitioner's claim cannot be faulted with. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 5] Needless to say that it would be open for the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance by filing appropriate proceedings in the civil court. JUDGE Hirekhan ...../-