SHARAD Vs. BANKAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the sides. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioners are impugning the judgment and order passed by Tahsildar Shrigonda in Rasta Case No. 44/2018 on 05.04.2019 and the order confirming it passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Shrigonda in Revision Application No. 217/2019 dated 18.03.2020, whereby the revision preferred by them has been dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner No. 3 and the respondents No. 1 and 2 are the real brothers. Land Gat No. 45 is their ancestral property. By virtue of Mutation Entry No. 1119 that land along with another land Gat No. 116 was partitioned amongst them. The land Gat No. 45 was trifurcated East-West in the direction. The Southern most portion was allotted to respondent No. 1. The middle portion was allotted to respondent No. 2 and the Northern most portion was allotted to the petitioner No. 3. It is then alleged that during the course of time the respondent No. 2 sold his share in piecemeal manner to the petitioners No 1 and 2 who happen to be the sons of the petitioner No. 3. In proceeding under the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, each of these three sharers were to get an additional 7 Are portion. Apprehending that the petitioners might have to part with a portion of the land, they started damaging it by removing sand. They also destroyed the customary way that was existing for use of all the sharers situated in the middle of the land Gat No. 45 and runs North-South in direction and which situate to the East of the houses of the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 situated in their respective portions. Hence the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a proceeding under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 (hereinafter 'the Act'). By the impugned judgment and order the Tahsildar allowed the application and issued a mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to restore the customary way to the original state. The revision preferred by the petitioners having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Court.