Vishwanath Sadashiv Deshmane And Others vs Tahsildar Chikhali And Others

Rohit B. Deo, J

As many as four authorities have held that the private respondents are entitled to use the way from the Western side boundary of Survey 107 owned by the petitioners.

A finding of fact is recorded that the way is a “5 aana way” which means that the way is a ‘bullock cart way’ and not a ‘footway’. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Abhay Sambre fairly does not dispute that the revenue record does show such way on the Western dhura, as ‘5 aana’. However, the submission is, that as a fact, the contesting private respondents were not using the said way, that the petitioners are more than willing to permit the private respondents to use the Eastern side boundary as the ‘bullock cart way’, and the petitioners obstructed since a new right was asserted.

I am afraid in writ jurisdiction, it would be wholly impermissible to interfere with the findings of fact, which are recorded by as many as four revenue authorities.

I see no perversity as such. If the petitioners do not agree with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tahsildar, which finding is then confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Additional Collector and finally by the Commissioner, the petitioners may take recourse to appropriate remedy by instituting civil suit, if such remedy is available.

I see no reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

The petition is dismissed. No costs.