SUHASINI D/O HARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' appeal.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows - The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of a right of way and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff no.1 purchased plot no.28 of village Indala falling in survey No.36. She purchased it on 18/7/1990. It is her contention that survey No.36 was converted into non-agriculture use and plots were laid in survey No.36 and she has purchased a plot No.28 out of the same. On three sides of the survey No.36, there is a forest and on the Northern side there is survey No.37 in which now there is a lake known as 'Indala lake'. The plaintiff contends that to reach her plot, one has to go by Amravati . Chandur (Rly) road via Pohara and from that road, one has to go through the forest by the road shown by letters ABCD in the plaint map. It is her contention that besides this road, there is no other road available as an access to her plot. It is further contended that all plot holders have been using this road as an access to their plots and the same is being used since time immemorial. It is also contended that the said way is a way of necessity. The plaintiffs submit that defendant no.2 unauthorisely caused damage to the electric poles. Similarly, defendant no.2 has caused damage to the road leading to these plots. The said road has been dug at several places. This action of the defendant, it is alleged, is high handed. It is alleged that defendant no.2 has instituted criminal proceedings against plaintiff and her father. The plaintiff submits that she had shown all documents to the concerned authority i.e. defendant no.2 but defendant no.2 is not in a mood to listen the request of the plaintiff at all. The plaintiff, therefore, has approached the Civil Court for declaration of a right of way. The plaintiff also contends that the defendant has illegally seized the suit property and she prays for release of the said property from attachment by the defendant no.2.

(3.) Defendant no.2 resisted the suit by filing written statement. The defendant denies all allegations made by the plaintiff. It is the contention of the defendant that all around survey No.36, there is a reserve forest area. There is no road or access to the said survey number through the forest. The plaintiff had in fact unauthorisely constructed the road which has been demolished by the defendant. It is contended that since the said field is encircled by the reserve forest, the plaintiffs cannot have right of way through it. The plaintiffs were never using any such way since there is no such way in existence at all. It is also contended that the plaintiffs had made encroachment on the forest land. Further, it is contended that the lay-out sanctioned by the Sub-Divisional Officer has not been approved by the Town Planning Authority. The defendant, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.