IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 904 WRIT PETITION NO. 13741 OF 2017 CHANDRAKALA SAHEBRAO KHEDKAR AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHIVAJI BHAGUJI SALUNKE AND OTHERS ... Mr. V.H. Dighe, Advocate for petitioners Mr. G.J. Pahilwan, Advocate h/f Mr. N.A. Matkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Ms. M.L. Sangit, AGP for respondent Nos.4 and 5 ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER : . The present petition is filed in order to assail order dated 29.06.2016 passed by the Mamlatdar, Shevgaon in Rasta Case No.11/2016, whereby the present petitioners are directed to remove obstruction over the road passing alongside boundary of an agricultural land bearing Gat No.305 and Gat No.313 and the order dated 25.09.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pathardi dismissing revision filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906 in order to assail the aforesaid order passed by the Mamlatdar. Present respondent Nos.1 to 3 had filed the above 2026:BHC-AUG:41958 2 904_WP_13741_2017 Mamlatdar case inter alia seeking relief of removal of obstruction of the aforesaid road stated to be passing through land bearing Gat Nos.305 and 313. The application was opposed predominantly on the ground that the respondents/plaintiffs had an alternate road to approach their agricultural field bearing Gat No.306 from the land of brother of respondent No.1 and that existence of the said road is also noticed in the spot panchnama. Another contention raised is that there are electric poles on the boundary separating field Gat Nos.305 and 313 and as such cart way cannot be directed from the said road. 2 Both the authorities have recorded concurrent findings as regards obstruction of the road passing between Gat Nos.305 and 313 by digging a trench near the land of respondent bearing Gat No.306. It is not in dispute that there is a field boundary locally known as ‘Bandh’ or ‘Dhura’ in vernacular alongside the boundary of the land bearing Gat Nos.305 and 313. The findings with respect to obstruction are recorded on the basis of a spot panchnama. The findings of both the authorities are based on some evidence on record, which cannot be re-appreciated by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. This Court sees no reason to disturb the findings recorded by both the authorities below. As regards the other contention with respect to availability of alternate road, perusal of revisional order passed by the Sub 3 904_WP_13741_2017 Divisional Order will demonstrate that in order to approach agricultural land by using the said road, the respondents/plaintiffs will have to travel around one kilometer of additional distance. That apart existence of alternate road is not a valid defence for obstruction of any existing road. An agricultural land may have more than one approach roads. That by itself cannot be a ground for any person to obstruct one of the approach roads. In view of the aforesaid, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by both the authorities. Writ Petition, therefore, dismissed. 3 Request of extension of interim order dated 21.11.2018 is rejected, since the petition merely raises disputed question of facts, which cannot be raised in writ jurisdiction. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) agd