6-wp4701-2017.doc AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4701 OF 2017 Manik Barku Yashwante … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra (through the Divisional Commissioner), National Highway Project, Nasik, having his office at Old Agra Road, Nasik & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Shailendra Pendse for the Petitioner. Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3-State. Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari with Mr. Bipin A. Singh i/by Mr. P.N. Joshi for respondent Nos.4a to 4d. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2026 P.C.: 1. The present Writ Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 28 January 2015 passed by the Tahsildar, Chandwad, which has been confirmed by the Revisional Authority by its order dated 9 September 2015. The Petitioner has challenged both the orders principally on the ground that the Authorities have recorded a finding regarding existence of a road without there being sufficient material on record to support such finding. The controversy, therefore, has to be examined with reference to the material which was actually available before the Authorities and the basis on which the finding regarding existence 1 ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2026.08.31 17:51:10 +0530 6-wp4701-2017.doc of the alleged road came to be recorded. 2. Having regard to the rival submissions and the nature of the orders under challenge, the controversy in the present Writ Petition is narrow. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the Respondents have established the existence of the road as alleged by them and whether the Authorities were justified in recording a finding to that effect on the material placed before them. The said question assumes importance because the finding regarding existence of the road forms the foundation of the orders passed by the Authorities. 3. I have perused the orders passed by the Authorities as well as the panchanamas which were relied upon while reaching the conclusion regarding existence of the road. It appears that the Authorities have proceeded on the footing that the panchanamas conducted under the Act establish the existence of the alleged road. However, such an approach is not borne out from the panchanamas themselves. On careful perusal of the material placed on record, there is no specific statement, observation or finding in the panchanamas recording that a road was found to be existing at the site. On the contrary, the first panchanama indicates that there was no road in existence at the relevant place. The second panchanama, upon which reliance appears to have been placed by the Authorities, also does not record any finding which would establish the existence of the alleged road. Thus, the primary documentary material relied upon by the Authorities does not support the conclusion which they have ultimately recorded. A finding of fact must have some material foundation. Where the 2 6-wp4701-2017.doc document relied upon does not contain the fact which it is said to establish, the conclusion cannot be sustained merely by referring to such document. 4. It is also material to note that apart from the aforesaid panchanamas, there is no other independent or concrete material considered by the Authorities under the Act which could establish the physical existence of the alleged road. The conclusion appears to have been based substantially upon the oral statements of the parties or persons concerned. Oral statements may certainly constitute relevant material, depending upon the nature of the proceedings. However, when the existence of a physical feature such as a road is specifically disputed, and the Authorities themselves have undertaken site inspections and prepared panchanamas, the finding regarding such physical existence ought to have a clear basis in the contemporaneous material. In the present case, the panchanamas do not record the existence of the road. Rather, the first panchanama indicates the contrary. In these circumstances, the Authorities could not have proceeded to record a positive finding regarding existence of the road without referring to some other reliable material which would displace or explain the contents of the panchanamas. No such material has been pointed out. The finding, therefore, suffers from absence of sufficient evidentiary foundation. The Revisional Authority, while confirming the order of the Tahsildar, has also failed to properly consider this material aspect. Consequently, the impugned orders cannot be permitted to stand. 3 6-wp4701-2017.doc 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. The finding recorded by the Authorities regarding existence of the alleged road is unsupported by the material relied upon by them and, therefore, the consequential orders based upon such finding cannot be sustained in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Judgment and Order dated 28 January 2015 passed by the Tahsildar, Chandwad, and the order dated 9 September 2015 passed by the Revisional Authority are quashed and set aside. 7. It is clarified that the setting aside of the aforesaid orders shall not prevent the Respondents from adopting such other proceedings as may be available to them in accordance with law. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 4