Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the High
Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in W.P. No.5115 of 2018.
The aforesaid writ petition had challenged the order dated 27.06.2018
passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in
Appeal No.155/MRC-81/Wakodi/2015-16.
On the basis of spot inspection conducted by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Malkapur, a road with 6 meters width marked as ABCD in the map
was directed to be created by reducing the area of western plot no.449 from
the layout prepared by the appellant to enable the present respondent no.4 to
go to his agricultural field.
Mukesh Nasa
The appeal preferred by the appellant challenging said order passed by
the Additional Collector, Buldhana was rejected by the Additional
Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati.
Being aggrieved, the matter was carried further by the appellant before
the High Court by filing Writ petition No.5115 of 2018. Said writ petition
having been dismissed, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
On 11.01.2019, while issuing notice, this Court directed the parties to
maintain status quo until further orders.
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant
invited our attention to the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Malkapur. While dealing with permission sought by the
present respondent no.4 for converting his agricultural land to non-
agricultural, the permission was refused on the ground that there was no
approach road to the layout proposed by the respondent no.4. It was
submitted that there was no easement of necessity nor any right existing in
favour of respondent no.4 in relation to which any direction could be issued
and access could be granted to respondent no.4. It was further submitted
that while the matter raised important questions, the order passed by the
High Court was very cryptic and did not deal with those questions.
At this stage, we may extract the relevant portion from the order
passed by the High Court, which was to the following effect:
“2. I have gone through the impugned order. It has been
concurrently found on facts of the case by the authorities below that
the layout has been prepared by the petitioner by violating the
conditions of the sanctioned order and considering the facts of this
case. I do not see any serious mistake having been committed by the
authorities below in recording the concurrent findings. Now, the
position is that six meters wide road has also been created. As such, I
find no merit in this petition. The petition stands dismissed. Rule is
discharged with no order as to costs.”
Without going into the questions whether there was any easement or
right in favour of respondent no.4 on the basis of which he could have
demanded and could be granted access through the property of the appellant,
in our view, the essential issues arising in the matter ought to have been
considered by the High Court in more detail.
We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the order passed by the
High Court and remand the matter for fresh consideration.
Consequently, Writ Petition No.5115 of 2018 filed by the appellant
stands restored to the file of the High Court to be disposed of as early as
possible and preferably within six months from today.
Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.4
submitted that during the pendency of the instant proceedings, his client had
been enjoying access to his property from the road created through the
property of the appellant. It was submitted that pending consideration by the
High Court, the status quo be continued.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, status quo as obtaining on
11.01.2019 shall continue. However, respondent no.4 shall also not change
the character of his property and if at all he has secured the permission for
conversion of his agricultural land to non-agricultural, said permission shall
not be worked or utilized till the matter is disposed by the High Court.
The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms, without any order as to
costs.