JUDGMENT: - The petitioners herein have approached this Court challenging the order passed by the Sub - Divisional Officer, Nagpur in Revenue Appeal No.3/BND - 56/9394 passed on 12 - 10 - 2000. It was a revision petition filed by the original respondents against order passed by Naib Tahsildar on 28 - 1 - 1974 in complaint of non - compliance of earlier order (order dated 17 - 6 - 89). The Sub Divisional Officer had ordered fresh enquiry in the right claimed by present petitioner. The said remand order dated 27 - 1 - 2000 is challenged in this petition. 2. It would be necessary to refer to the facts and background in brief which is as follows: (a) Petitioners filed application herein on or about 21st February, 1989 before the Tahsildar, Nagpur. The application is filed under Section 143 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code r/w. section 5 of Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906. Copy whereof is now supplied by the respondents for perusal. (b) It is seen that the applicants have purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 30 - 6 - 1982. According to the petitioners they are using the suit way shown in red coloured line the in the map attached to the petition since the date of purchase and used the said way for movement of bullock carts, movement of plough animals etc. (c) According to the petitioners said way passes through field Survey No. 19/1 (Old No.21/1), which is owned by the non - applicants 1(a) to 1(g) thereafter through Survey No.20/ A - 3, (Old No.20/2) owned by non - applicant No.2 and then across the Nallah and then through field Survey No.30/B - 1 (Old No.111/1) owned by the non - applicants no.3(a) to 3(b) and reaches the petitioners land. The way passes near and touching Dhura boundary of each field survey numbers referred therein. (d) According to the petitioners, the said way is in actual use of Opponents No.3(a) and 3(b) for approaching their land and similarly by Opponent No.2. The Opponent Nos.3(a) and 3(b) had raised fence on 28 - 4 - 1988 thereby obstructing the petitioners in use of said way for approaching their property. The obstruction is shown along the places marked . 'X' in the map annexed to the application. The Opponent Nos.3(a) and 3(b) had raised fence on 28 - 4 - 1988 thereby obstructing the petitioners in use of said way for approaching their property. The obstruction is shown along the places marked . 'X' in the map annexed to the application. (e) According to the petitioners, in revenue Case No.385/88 - 89 of Bharatwada when the spot inspection was conducted, the respondent 3(a) admitted his having raised the obstruction, and when they were directed to remove the obstruction it was complied. (f) Thereafter, these respondents again obstructed the way, hence, the application was filed under Section 143 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. (g) It is also mentioned in the application that the way was in existence for more than 50 years in the record of rights much prior to 1951. According to the applicants, the cultivators of mouzas around are entitled to use the Dhura for the purpose of passage. (h) They therefore, prayed for declaration that the applicants were entitled to use the said way and for injunction against the respondents not to obstruct and use their way. 3. The Tahsildar who is the competent authority under Section 143 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 issued notice to the Non - applicants. The application was opposed. The Tahsildar conducted the spot inspection on 30 - 5 - 1989. He then passed the interim order of injunction on 17 - 8 - 1989 and later confirmed the injunction. It was found that Dhura was ploughed and the way which was passing over it, which was available, was destroyed. After hearing, the Tahsildar found that it is the duty of every cultivator to maintain the common Dhura of the boundaries of survey number for smooth conduct of agricultural operation particularly when the field of different owners are adjoining. The nonapplicants have not maintained proper Dhura specially on the eastern side of their fields. The Dhuras have been encroached and thereby they have thereby contravened statutory obligation. 4. Tahsildar, therefore passed the order directing the common Dhura on the boundaries of the respective field to be maintained and declared that it shall be the legal way available to the applicants. It is seen that the Judgment and order was delivered by Tahsildar on 6 - 10 - 1989 which is Annexure - I to the writ petition. 4. Tahsildar, therefore passed the order directing the common Dhura on the boundaries of the respective field to be maintained and declared that it shall be the legal way available to the applicants. It is seen that the Judgment and order was delivered by Tahsildar on 6 - 10 - 1989 which is Annexure - I to the writ petition. It is seen that this order was not challenged by the respondents therein before the Civil Court as is provided under Section 143(5) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, or in any other manner or before any other forum whatsoever. 5. It is seen that the respondents did not obey and comply with the order passed by Tahsildar on 6 - 10 - 1986. The petitioners herein complained some time in January, 1994 to the Tahsildar about non - compliance, therefore, the Tahsildar ordered spot inspection on 18 - 11994. The Talathi visited the spot when the applicant and Dnyaneshwar Morey one of the respondents was present. It was found that Dhura was ploughed and orange trees were planted in Survey No.20/B/2 owned by the applicant. Similarly, stones demarcating the boundary of Nallah and river were removed by the non - applications. It was found that the non - applicants had failed to carry out the order. The Tahsildar found that neither any appeal nor any other remedy was taken against the order dated 6 - 10 - 1989. He, therefore passed the order on 2 - 1 - 1994 directing the non - applicants to carry out the order. 6. It is seen that Dhanraj Morey and other opponents filed the Revision Petition before the Sub - Divisional Officer (sic) passed on 2 - 1 - 1994. It appears that the said revision petition was dismissed in default, against which the second revision petition was taken before the Additional Collector. Nagpur who allowed the petition by an order dated 5 - 6 - 2000 and remanded the case to the Sub - Divisional Officer for re - hearing and disposal according to law. After the remand by the Collector, order dated 27 - 12 - 2000 has been passed by Sub Divisional Officer which order is impugned in this present petition - Annexure - V to the petition. 7. After the remand by the Collector, order dated 27 - 12 - 2000 has been passed by Sub Divisional Officer which order is impugned in this present petition - Annexure - V to the petition. 7. After perusal of order dated 2712 - 2000 Annexure - V, it is seen that what is under challenge is the order dated 28 - 1 - 1994 passed by Tahsildar in execution of earlier order. This is obvious from the narration found in the very opening part of the order which reads as follows: "Appellant preferred this appeal under Section 23 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 being aggrieved by the order passed on 28 - 1 - 1994 by Naib Tahsildar, Rural in Revenue Case No.5/BND 56/92 - 93 of village Bharatwada, Patwari Halka NO.12". 8. It is seen from the perusal of the order dated 27 - 12 - 2000 that the crux of challenge was based on the contents of the sale deed through which the applicants i.e. the present petitioner acquired the right title and interest to the land Survey No.20/B-2 the vendors have given different way, however, that these sale deeds were suppressed from the Revenue Authorities and a right of totally new way was sought. It is seen that the Sub-Divisional Officer was impressed with this submission and the Sub-Divisional Officer found that the Naib Tahasildar had committed error in appreciation of factual position and therefore, it was desirable to remand the case for fresh enquiry. 9. It can be noticed from the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar i.e. Annexure-III dated 28-1-1994, that no fresh adjudication was done by him while passing said order. The Naib Tahasildar only ordered that the order which was already passed be carried out. It was a clear case of issue of fresh direction or issue notice seeking compliance of order already passed which was binding on the parties. Even order passed by Naib Tahsildar consists of mention as follows: "This order is in execution of the order passed earlier referred to in above paras." [Quoted from page 17 of the paper book] 10. Submission of learned Advocate Mr. Kshirsagar, for petitioner advanced in support of the petition can be summarised as follows: The order passed by the Naib Tahasildar on 6-10-1989 under Section 143 has attained the finality. Submission of learned Advocate Mr. Kshirsagar, for petitioner advanced in support of the petition can be summarised as follows: The order passed by the Naib Tahasildar on 6-10-1989 under Section 143 has attained the finality. At no point of time any appeal or revision under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was carried against it. It is also seen from the opening part of order Annexure- V, which contains the mention of background and contains the narration of what was challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer is the order dated 28-1-1994. Moreover, when a statute provides a mode of redressal namely sub-section (5) of Section 143 provides for a Civil suit, any remedy by way of appeal or revision petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer is impliedly barred. The respondents have failed to challenge the order by filing a Civil Suit. The respondents have acquiesced with the said order for almost 3Yz years, and therefore, it is not open to them to file any revision petition and pursue it. In this background, order of remand will have to be viewed to be the act of excess of exercise of jurisdiction. When the revision itself was not maintainable, there is no question of any remand. Moreover, no fresh directions are issued which could have called for an enquiry even otherwise. Therefore, the order of remand is wholly unjustified. No enquiry whatsoever was necessary, possible or permissible. The order of remand therefore, results is nothing except causing abuse of process of law and justice. 11. Submissions of Learned Advocate Mr. R. K. Deshpande appearing for the contesting respondents namely respondent~ no.2 to 9 can be summarised as follows: The order of remand which is impugned does not result in any prejudice to the present petitioners whatsoever as they shall get reasonable and fair opportunity to present their case. The present Writ Petitioners suppressed from the revenue authorities that the sale deeds dated 30-6-1982 through which the plaintiffs purchased the property in which, a way from Shiv was specified and, therefore, the way which the plaintiff is claiming, is not available to them. Though the remedy under Section 143(5) is available, it is an enabling provision and it does not in any manner bar the remedy of revision under Section 23 of Mamlatdar's Courts Act. Both orders of Tahsildar were challenged, and therefore remand was justified. 12. Learned Advocate Mr. Though the remedy under Section 143(5) is available, it is an enabling provision and it does not in any manner bar the remedy of revision under Section 23 of Mamlatdar's Courts Act. Both orders of Tahsildar were challenged, and therefore remand was justified. 12. Learned Advocate Mr. Deshpande placed reliance on various Judgments which are as under: (1) (1999)8 Supreme Court Cases 16, Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo Vs. State of Bihar and others. (2) (1993)2 Supreme Court Cases 507, Ciranhjilal Shrilal Goenka Vs. Jasjit Singh and others. (3) 2002(4) Mh.L.J. 74, Union of India and others Vs. Maruti Madhav Kerulkar and others. 13. Court has given due consideration to rival submissions. After perusal of the petition and its annexures, the reply of the respondents and annexures thereto, this Court finds that it is obvious from the conduct of parties that the petitioners had applied for a way and for direction for maintenance of Dhuras under Section 143 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Petitioners also mentioned Section 5 of Mamlatdars' Courts Act in said application, which seems to be sheerly procedural. 14. The foundation for claiming right of way appears to be based by applicants on following points : (a) A way was in existence in the record of rights since prior to 1951-1952; (b) obstruction thereof was done; (c) admission by the respondent no.3 of obstruction in earlier enquiry; (d) statutory duty of land owners to maintain Dhura for common use by surrounding land owners ; (e) that the alternate way suggested in the sale deeds is along Goan Shiv and the use thereof requires one to cross a long way from Gaovthan and cross also 12 survey numbers, while the way in question is nearest to the Gavthan and has to pass through only two survey numbers. 15. It is seen that spot inspection was conducted and the Tahsildar had found that the Dhuras were destroyed which the Respondents were bound to maintain. In the result, the Tahsildar passed order dated 6-9-1989. This order has reached finality, as it was not challenged in the manner provided in S.143(5) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Moreover, it can be seen from the memo of revision, which is filed along with the affidavit-in-reply by the present respondents, that what they had challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer is the order 28-1-1994 and 5-6-1995. This order has reached finality, as it was not challenged in the manner provided in S.143(5) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Moreover, it can be seen from the memo of revision, which is filed along with the affidavit-in-reply by the present respondents, that what they had challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer is the order 28-1-1994 and 5-6-1995. Even now it is cleared that they have not challenged the order dated 6-10-1989. 16. It is clear that the order for grant of way under Section 143 of Land Revenue Code, which was liable to be challenged in Civil Court, it unacceptable or aggrieving has not been challenged, but the said order attains finality. May be that said order could otherwise be challenged on the ground of non-observance of mandatory provisions of law or violation of principles of natural justice under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, for that purpose also, a declaratory suit could have been filed which too has not been filed within 3 years from the date thereof. The reference to provision of Mamlatdars' Courts Act, in the petition filed by the petitioners herein before the Naib Tahasildar is for the purpose of taking recourse to the procedure for grant of injunction, the jurisdiction which was primarily invoked was under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. 17. This Court finds that the direction to maintain Dhura and declaration to have a right of way granted in favour of the present writ petitioner was under Section 143 of Mamlaldars' Court Act. This order could never have been challenged in a revision under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. The relief of injunction was an anciliary relief to the main relief. When the main relief granted in an order has gone unchallenged, it is futile to challenge ancillary or consequential orders. Due to these reasons, it would be clear that filing of revision against the order of Naib Tahsildar before the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 23 is no manner a legally available remedy at all. This Court ultimately finds that the order dated 17-6-1989 granting of way has attained finality and has to be complied with and cannot be reopened at belated stage and just for asking. 18. This Court ultimately finds that the order dated 17-6-1989 granting of way has attained finality and has to be complied with and cannot be reopened at belated stage and just for asking. 18. This Court finds that the respondents had not raised any objection as to mode and manner of execution of order of Tahsildar which could have been in certain eventuality a cause leading to remand of a case to find out whether the particular order was properly executed or is being properly executed. The order of remand impugned proposes full enquiry into the antecedents of order that had attained finality. The remand, therefore, does not serve any purpose of cause of justice, and it deserves to be set aside. 19. Rule is, therefore, made absolute. Judgment and order impugned dated 27-12-2000 passed by the respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside with costs throughout. Petition allowed.