1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 313 OF 2010 (Khushal Shripat Tajne vs. Motiram Shripat Tajne & 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. APRIL 08, 2010. Heard Shri Zoting, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Chaware, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 and Shri Mujumdar, learned AGP for respondents No. 4 & 5. The petitioner before this Court is challenging the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by Respondent No. 5 – Additional Collector and order dated 27.07.2009 passed by Respondent No. 4 – Tahsildar. The contention of Shri Zoting, learned counsel is, the petitioner and Respondents No. 1 & 2 have stepped into the shoes of Respondent No. 3 and field property belonged to Respondent No. 3 has been divided between Respondent No. 3 and his sons viz., the petitioner and Respondents No. 1 and 2. There was previous litigation between Respondent No. 3 and one Subhash Deshmukh about laying of water pipeline and in that a compromise was reached. Shri Deshmukh was allowed to lay a pipeline underground and an opening was then provided for the purposes of use of water in the 2 field of Respondent No.3. That portion of field with opening has now fallen in the share of Respondent No. 1. Thus, Respondent No.1 already has facility of irrigation and additional facility by permitting him to lay down another pipeline underground, therefore, could not have been allowed under Section 49 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The learned AGP supports the impugned orders. He states that the fact of facility already available to Respondent No. 1 is reflected in both the orders. Shri Chaware, learned counsel, states that the law should take its own course. The perusal of impugned orders reveal that the contention of present petitioner that there is already a pipeline and a source of irrigation has only been mentioned. Its effect has not been gone into. The necessity of additional facility of irrigation and whether such an additional facility can be provided under Section 49 of the Code is also not considered. The Additional Collector has in para 4 noted that the source of irrigation for Respondent No. 1 is not very clear. It is, therefore, apparent that previous litigation between Respondent No. 3 and Subhash Deshmukh and compromise therein has not been looked into. In this situation, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The same are accordingly quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.