Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 55550 (BOM)

KAILAS S/O GANPAT WANKHADE v. ARUN S/O SHANKARRAO KALASKAR AND OTHERS

WP/6407/2024 · 2025-04-07

Smt M S Jawalkar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Judgment 1 wp 6407-2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 6407 OF 2024 Kailas s/o Ganpat Wankhade, Aged about 57 years, Occu. Agriculturist, R/o At Wandali, Post Godegaon, Tah. Warud, Distt. Amravati, Mobile 7775887246 …. PETITIONER // VERSUS // 1. Arun s/o Shankarrao Kalaskar Aged about 62 yrs, Occ. Agriculturist, 2. Vishnu s/o Shankarrao Kalaskar, Aged about 38 years, Occu. Agriculturist, 3. Bhomeshwar s/o Shankarrao Kalaskar, Aged about 60 years, Occu. Agriculturist, 4. Ghanshyam s/o Shankarrao Kalaskar, Aged about 55 years, occu. Agriculturist, 5. Ujjawala wd/o Hemraj Kalaskar, Aged about 42 years, Occu. Agriculturist, 6. Samiksha d/o Hemraj Kalaskar, Aged about 17 years, occu. Agriculturist, All R. Nos. 1 to 6 are R/o At Wandali, Tah. Warud, Dist. Amravati. 7. Ganga w/o Bandupanth Kadu, Aged about 50 years, occu. Agriculturist, R/o At Goregaon, Tah. Warud, Dist. Amravati. 8. Kalpana w/o Madhukar Satange, Aged about 45 years, Occu. Agriculturist, R/o At Ambada, Tah. Narkhed, Dist. Nagpur. 2025:BHC-NAG:3869 Judgment 2 wp 6407-2024.odt 9. Sub-Divisional Officer, Morshi Dist. Amravati 10. Nayab Tahsildar (Mamlatdar Court), Warud, Dist. Amravati (R-9 and 10 added as per Courts order dated 26.03.2025) …. RESPONDENTS ______________________________________________________________ Smt. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner Shri M.A. Sable, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 8 Ms Deepa Charlewar, AGP for respondent Nos.9 and 10 ______________________________________________________________ CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. DATED : 07.04.2025 (ORAL) JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. It appears that the Tahsildar as well as Sub Divisional Officer carried out inspection of the spot and drawn there own sketches for showing way to approach Survey No.185. However, map placed on record by the petitioner along with rejoinder, it appears that there is no way in between Survey No.186 and 179. However, the Talathi has shown the road in between Survey No.186 and 179 to approach Survey No.185. As such, sketched map drawn by the Talathi, appears to be incorrect positions of survey numbers. Survey No.186 and 179 are not adjacent nor there is any way shown passing through in between survey No.186 and 179. The Revenue Authorities are having land Judgment 3 wp 6407-2024.odt record and also map of Mouza Wandali of which certified copy is issued by the office. 3. On perusal of this map, it appears that there is some error in the sketched map drawn by the Talathi/Tahsildar. While drawing map, the Tahsildar shown way in between survey No.186 and survey No.179 and survey No.186 and survey No.179 are shown adjacent to each other. On the basis of that map, the Tahsildar passed an order even the Sub Divisional Officer confirmed the said order relying on that map. If certified copy of map produced on record is perused, it appears that survey No.186 and survey No.179 are not adjacent to each other. In between survey No.186 and survey No.179, there is survey No.178. Therefore, order passed on the basis of the map drawn patently erroneously and is liable to be set aside. As such, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) Both the orders passed by the Tahsildar dated 10.11.2023 and 13.09.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar to consider the revenue map available on record or certified copy if filed by the applicant in support of his contention with the Tahsildar. Judgment 4 wp 6407-2024.odt (iv) Parties to appear before the Tahsildar Warud, on 21.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m. parties are at liberty to submit their contentions. (v) The Tahsildar is directed to consider afresh in view of the map of which certified copy is obtained by the petitioner herein. (vi) The Tahsildar is hereby directed to decide afresh as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight weeks. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms. No orders as to costs. (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) R.S. Sahare