Tahsildar Directed to Re-examine Evidence and Identify the Road in Dispute
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has set aside previous orders by the Tahsildar, Dindori, and the Sub-Divisional Officer in a case involving the alleged obstruction of a Vahivat road. The case, originally filed by Respondent No.3, claimed an East-West Vahivat road from Gat No.415 towards the North-South village road was being obstructed by the petitioners. The court has remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for a fresh inquiry to determine the road's identity and existence, citing insufficient clarity in previous findings.
Justice Amit Borkar, while presiding over the matter, noted that the jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act is summary, intended for immediate relief against obstruction to existing roads or customary ways. The judgment emphasized that a Mamlatdar cannot create new roads but must verify the existence of the claimed road and any obstruction thereto.
The High Court pointed out discrepancies in the spot inspection panchnama dates and the lack of clarity regarding the road’s identity, as the petitioners argued that the road claimed in civil court differed from the one in the Vahivat proceedings. Justice Borkar instructed the Tahsildar to conduct a detailed spot inspection, consider relevant maps and revenue records, and possibly engage the competent Land Records authority to resolve any disputes about the road’s exact location.
The judgment highlights the necessity for a comprehensive examination of evidence, including oral testimonies, photographs, and government records, to establish the road's existence and the alleged obstruction accurately. The court clarified that the absence of an alternate route does not justify creating a new road under Section 5 but requires proof of an existing passage obstructed within the statutory period.
Respondent No.3 contended that the road had been in use for years and that no alternative access existed to his agricultural land. However, the High Court maintained that these claims must be substantiated with concrete evidence in the remanded inquiry.
The Bombay High Court's decision underscores the importance of thorough procedural adherence in summary jurisdiction cases under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, ensuring that foundational facts are established through meticulous evaluation of all available evidence.
Bottom Line :
Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 - Section 5 proceedings are summary in nature and confined to removal of obstruction to an existing road or customary way - Mamlatdar cannot create a new road merely because claimant has no alternate access - Where identity and location of alleged vahivat road are disputed, clear finding regarding existence, exact route, prior use, obstruction and limitation is mandatory - In absence of proper identification of road with reference to maps, panchnama and other evidence, orders granting relief are liable to be set aside and matter remanded for fresh inquiry.
Statutory provision(s): Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 - Sections 5, 19, Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226, 227, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - Section 143
Balasaheb Karbhari Uphade v. Tahasildar, Dindori, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2988067
