MANIK BARKU YASHWANTEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                                                                          6-wp4701-2017.doc


                   AGK
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 4701 OF 2017

                   Manik Barku Yashwante                       … Petitioner
                               V/s.
                   The State of Maharashtra (through the
                   Divisional Commissioner), National
                   Highway Project, Nasik, having his
                   office at Old Agra Road, Nasik & Ors.       … Respondents



ATUL
                   Mr. Shailendra Pendse for the Petitioner.
GANESH
KULKARNI           Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.
Digitally signed
by ATUL GANESH     Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari with Mr. Bipin A. Singh i/by Mr.
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.08.31
17:51:10 +0530
                   P.N. Joshi for respondent Nos.4a to 4d.


                                              CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                              DATED      : AUGUST 31, 2026
                   P.C.:

                   1.      The present Writ Petition takes exception to the Judgment
                   and Order dated 28 January 2015 passed by the Tahsildar,
                   Chandwad, which has been confirmed by the Revisional Authority
                   by its order dated 9 September 2015. The Petitioner has
                   challenged both the orders principally on the ground that the
                   Authorities have recorded a finding regarding existence of a road
                   without there being sufficient material on record to support such
                   finding. The controversy, therefore, has to be examined with
                   reference to the material which was actually available before the
                   Authorities and the basis on which the finding regarding existence




                                                    1
                                                       6-wp4701-2017.doc


of the alleged road came to be recorded.

2.    Having regard to the rival submissions and the nature of the
orders under challenge, the controversy in the present Writ
Petition is narrow. The only question which arises for consideration
is whether the Respondents have established the existence of the
road as alleged by them and whether the Authorities were justified
in recording a finding to that effect on the material placed before
them. The said question assumes importance because the finding
regarding existence of the road forms the foundation of the orders
passed by the Authorities.

3.    I have perused the orders passed by the Authorities as well
as the panchanamas which were relied upon while reaching the
conclusion regarding existence of the road. It appears that the
Authorities have proceeded on the footing that the panchanamas
conducted under the Act establish the existence of the alleged
road. However, such an approach is not borne out from the
panchanamas themselves. On careful perusal of the material
placed on record, there is no specific statement, observation or
finding in the panchanamas recording that a road was found to be
existing at the site. On the contrary, the first panchanama indicates
that there was no road in existence at the relevant place. The
second panchanama, upon which reliance appears to have been
placed by the Authorities, also does not record any finding which
would establish the existence of the alleged road. Thus, the
primary documentary material relied upon by the Authorities does
not support the conclusion which they have ultimately recorded. A
finding of fact must have some material foundation. Where the



                                  2
                                                      6-wp4701-2017.doc


document relied upon does not contain the fact which it is said to
establish, the conclusion cannot be sustained merely by referring
to such document.

4.   It is also material to note that apart from the aforesaid
panchanamas, there is no other independent or concrete material
considered by the Authorities under the Act which could establish
the physical existence of the alleged road. The conclusion appears
to have been based substantially upon the oral statements of the
parties or persons concerned. Oral statements may certainly
constitute relevant material, depending upon the nature of the
proceedings. However, when the existence of a physical feature
such as a road is specifically disputed, and the Authorities
themselves have undertaken site inspections and prepared
panchanamas, the finding regarding such physical existence ought
to have a clear basis in the contemporaneous material. In the
present case, the panchanamas do not record the existence of the
road. Rather, the first panchanama indicates the contrary. In these
circumstances, the Authorities could not have proceeded to record
a positive finding regarding existence of the road without referring
to some other reliable material which would displace or explain
the contents of the panchanamas. No such material has been
pointed out. The finding, therefore, suffers from absence of
sufficient evidentiary foundation. The Revisional Authority, while
confirming the order of the Tahsildar, has also failed to properly
consider this material aspect. Consequently, the impugned orders
cannot be permitted to stand.




                                 3
                                                        6-wp4701-2017.doc


5.    In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons
recorded hereinabove, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.
The finding recorded by the Authorities regarding existence of the
alleged road is unsupported by the material relied upon by them
and, therefore, the consequential orders based upon such finding
cannot be sustained in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

6.    Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Judgment and
Order dated 28 January 2015 passed by the Tahsildar, Chandwad,
and the order dated 9 September 2015 passed by the Revisional
Authority are quashed and set aside.

7.    It is clarified that the setting aside of the aforesaid orders
shall not prevent the Respondents from adopting such other
proceedings as may be available to them in accordance with law.




                                             (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  4