Case: SULOCHANABAI SWAROPCHAND CHAWRE Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI DIVISION, AMRAVATI & ORS

1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal challenges the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in W.P. No.5115 of 2018. 3. The aforesaid writ petition had challenged the order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in Appeal No.155/MRC-81/Wakodi/2015-16. 4. On the basis of spot inspection conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malkapur, a road with 6 meters width marked as ABCD in the map was directed to be created by reducing the area of western plot no.449 from the layout prepared by the appellant to enable the present respondent no.4 to go to his agricultural field. 5. The appeal preferred by the appellant challenging said order passed by the Additional Collector, Buldhana was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. 6. Being aggrieved, the matter was carried further by the appellant before the High Court by filing Writ petition No.5115 of 2018. Said writ petition having been dismissed, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. On 11.01.2019, while issuing notice, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo until further orders. 8. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant invited our attention to the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Malkapur. While dealing with permission sought by the present respondent no.4 for converting his agricultural land to non- agricultural, the permission was refused on the ground that there was no approach road to the layout proposed by the respondent no.4. It was submitted that there was no easement of necessity nor any right existing in favour of respondent no.4 in relation to which any direction could be issued and access could be granted to respondent no.4. It was further submitted that while the matter raised important questions, the order passed by the High Court was very cryptic and did not deal with those questions. 9. At this stage, we may extract the relevant portion from the order passed by the High Court, which was to the following effect: 2. I have gone through the impugned order. It has been concurrently found on facts of the case by the authorities below that the layout has been prepared by the petitioner by violating the conditions of the sanctioned order and considering the facts of this case. I do not see any serious mistake having been committed by the authorities below in recording the concurrent findings. Now, the position is that six meters wide road has also been created. As such, I find no merit in this petition. The petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 10. Without going into the questions whether there was any easement or right in favour of respondent no.4 on the basis of which he could have demanded and could be granted access through the property of the appellant, in our view, the essential issues arising in the matter ought to have been considered by the High Court in more detail.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]10. Without going into the questions whether there was any easement or right in favour of respondent no.4 on the basis of which he could have demanded and could be granted access through the property of the appellant, in our view, the essential issues arising in the matter ought to have been considered by the High Court in more detail.