BHAVSING HARCHAND PARADESHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40497-DB
                                              1              WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               36 WRIT PETITION NO. 9286 OF 2025
                                       NANA KAMA PATIL
                                            VERSUS
                            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                                  ...
                   Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ashraf M. Patel & Ms. Vandana
                            B. Kakde h/f Mr. Avhad Abhijeet Padmakar.
                            AGP for Respondents/State : Ms. D. S. Jape.
                    Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 13 : Mr. Bhushan Mahajan.
                                                  ...

                             WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10907 OF 2025
                                         IN WP/9286/2025
                                 BHAVSING HARCHAND PARADESHI
                                              VERSUS
                        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
                                     SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                                …
                         Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Bhushan Mahajan.
                           AGP for Respondents/State : Ms. D. S. Jape.
                    Advocate for respective Respondents : Mr. Ashraf M. Patel &
                     Ms. Vandana B. Kakde h/f Mr. Avhad Abhijeet Padmakar.
                                                ...

                                          CORAM : MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.
                                          DATE : 04.09.2026

                   FINAL ORDER :-


                   1.      The petitioner is assailing the order passed by the Sub

                   Divisional Officer, Pachora, dated 04.07.2025 in Revision

                   Application No.49 of 2023 confirming the order passed by the

                   Tahsildar, dated 06.07.2023 allowing application filed by the

                   complainant thereby directing the petitioner not to cause any

                   obstruction on the right of way available to the respondents
                          2               WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt



herein from Gut No.161 and 162/2 on the south Bandh of Gut

running south-east of the cart road for commuting, and

transportation.


2.    It is the contention of the petitioner that in the earlier

round of challenge to the order passed by the Tahsildar, the

revision filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated

16.01.2024, thereby setting aside the order passed by the

Tahsildar. The order of S.D.O. has been rightly passed holding

that the existence of cart road has not been revealed in the

spot verification panchnama. Therefore, S.D.O. had directed

respondent No.3/Tahsildar, Bhadgaon to re-visit the subject

road and decide the Rasta case afresh. This order dated

16.01.2024 passed by respondent No.2/Sub Divisional Officer

was challenged by the respondents in Writ Petition No.4168 of

2024, which was partly allowed by quashing and setting aside

the order passed on 16.01.2024.


3.    It is submitted by the learned advocate for petitioner

that respondent No.2 has passed an order in Revision No.49 of

2023, after the order of remand passed by this Court in Writ

Petition No.4168 of 2024 and directed the Tahsildar, Bhadgaon

to make spot inspection and decide the Rasta Case No.26. This

order passed by respondent No.2 on 19.12.2024 was again
                          3              WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt



challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.5891 of 2025,

which was allowed and the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by

the Sub Divisional Officer was once again set aside by this

Court. This Court directed the Sub Divisional Officer to decide

the revision on its own merits on the basis of material already

placed before him. Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Officer has

once again decided Revision No.49 of 2023 vide order dated

04.07.2025, rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner.

Consequently, the petitioner has challenged the order passed

by the Sub Divisional Officer.


4.    It is the contention of the petitioner that, respondent

No.2/Sub Divisional Officer is not consistent in his orders.

There are three different orders passed by him taking different

stance on each occasion. In order dated 19.12.2024, he has

observed that in the spot panchnama, no road is shown; in

order dated 04.07.2025, it is observed that there is a road

shown in spot panchnama. Thus, according to the learned

advocate for the petitioner a contradictory stand is taken on

each occasion, when the matter was subjected to challenge

before respondent No.2.


5.    An objection is also raised by the petitioner on the

ground that respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.3 has
                          4               WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt



failed to consider that affidavit filed by Manohar Sakharam

Patil is not admissible, unless he is made party to the present

proceedings.


6.    Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that

although the land of Manohar Sakharam Patil is also affected

by the road which is claimed in the application, filed under the

Mamlatdar’s Courts Act.       He is not made a party and his

affidavit has been taken into consideration by the Authorities.

It is submitted that necessary inquiry about the owners of land,

whose lands are likely to be affected by the order passed by the

Tahsildar is not made party in the present proceedings.

According to him, they have failed to ascertain who is the

owner of land affected by the road of the respective gut

numbers. It is submitted that even son of the petitioner namely

Shankar is a necessary party to the proceedings.


7.    He further submitted that land Gut No.163/1 is owned

by the petitioner along with his elder son Baliram Nana Patil,

who is also necessary party. Yet he has not been added as a

party to the proceedings. It is submitted that there is an

alternate road that exists from the bank of Girna river which is

in use. Thus, the claim of the respondent herein is not

maintainable. The Regular Civil Suit No.38 of 2023 is also
                          5                WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt



pending in the Civil Court.     In Regular Civil Suit No.38 of

2023, he has categorically relied on the panchnama conducted

by the Tahsildar, Bhadgaon on 13.01.2023, who has recorded

that no cart track was found on the east side bank of the Bandh

of Gut 162/2, 162/1/A. In spite of the observation recorded in

the spot inspection, the Tahsildar, Bhadgaon has recorded that

the petitioner shall not obstruct the road abutting the Bandh

from Gut No.161 and 162/2, when no such road was not

available as per the panchnama. It is submitted that when the

cart road itself was not available as per the spot panchnama,

there is no question of causing any obstruction on the said

road. He would further submit that the same Authority who

has allowed his revision vide order dated 06.01.2024, by

setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar dated

06.07.2023, has taken a 360 degree U turn while passing the

impugned order dated 04.07.2025. He, therefore, submits that

the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, as well as the

Tahsildar, Bhadgaon dated 06.07.2023 is required to be

quashed and set aside.


8.    Per   contra,   learned   advocate   appearing        for   the

contesting respondent would submit that the spot panchnama

conducted by respondent No.3/Tahsildar, Bhadgaon has been
                           6              WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt



placed on record which is incomplete. The spot panchnama

includes the GPS photos and map which is not annexed to the

writ petition. He submits that the petitioner before the date of

spot panchnama has ploughed the field so as to support his

claim that there was no road in existence prior to the spot

panchnama, which is reflected from the GPS photos clicked by

respondent No.3/Tahsildar. He further submits that the village

map of village Savade reveals that the petitioner’s land Gut

No.161 is adjacent to the Savade-Pimpri village road.            Gut

No.161 is between Gut No.164 and Savade-Pimpri Village

road. There is no alternate road available for approaching the

respondents land bearing Gut No.164, but to approach through

the petitioner’s land from Gut No.161.          He submits that

respondent No.13/Mahohar Sakharam Patil has placed on

record   an   affidavit   before   Respondent     No.3/Tahsildar,

Bhadgaon admitting that respondent Nos.4 to 12 have east-

west Wahiwat road upto Gut No.161, at the south boundary.

He further submits that application below Exh.6 filed by the

petitioner in RCS.No.38 of 2023, has also been rejected by the

Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhadgaon when it was found that

the respondents, are not trying to create any new road or

access way from the suit property.     It is observed that, the

respondent farmers have no alternate way other than the one
                          7               WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt



claimed, seeking customary way before the learned Tahsildar.

According to him, the Tahsildar has rightly appreciated that,

the alleged access way has been ploughed by the petitioner

Nana Patil and sown Jawar in his field. The place where such

land is ploughed is contiguous to the road which is in existence

in Gut No.162/2, at the south boundary. This contention of the

petitioner is supported by the owner of Gut No.162/2 Manohar

Sakharam Patil. Hence, according to him, the Tahsildar,

Bhadgaon as well as the Sub Divisional Officer, Pachora has

passed orders after careful scrutiny of the documents which

does not deserve any interference.


9.    The learned AGP has also opposed any interference in

the order impugned on the ground that after the last remand

order, the SDO has heard the parties in the revision

application, after careful scrutiny of the material evidence

placed on record, the SDO has come to the conclusion that the

access way passing through Gut No.161 and 162/2 was in

existence and was used by respondent Nos.4 to 12, which is

obstructed by the present petitioner, by destroying the said

access way. It is therefore, submitted that considering that the

petitioner has ploughed the road, that was the access available

to the respondents to approach their own fields, the SDO has
                          8               WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt



rightly passed the order after taking into consideration the

conduct of the petitioner and the actual circumstances existing

on the site which does not deserve any interference. Hence,

writ petition deserves to be dismissed.


10.   Heard the respective parties and perused various orders

passed by the SDO. After remanding the matter twice back to

him for passing appropriate orders, the final order has been

passed by the SDO on 04.07.2025, which is impugned in the

present writ petition. The SDO while passing the order has

relied on the spot inspection report-cum-panchnama, as well as

the map of the site in respect of Gut No.161 and 169 as well as

the Gut numbers of the respective applicants produced on

record. The Tahsildar, Bhadgaon in his spot inspection report

dated 13.01.2023, has reported that between Gut No.161 and

169 there appears to be a common Bandh, which is existing

upto Gut No.162/2. The owner of Gut No.161 had sown crop

upto the Bandh between Gut No.161 and 162/2.              The cart

track appears from Bandh on Gut No.162/2 to 163/1.

Similarly, a cart track appears on the east side ahead of Gut

No.161 upto Gut No.162/2. Thus, he has arrived at the

conclusion that the claim of the petitioner appears to be correct

as per the spot inspection report. As regards the claim of the
                          9               WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt



present petitioner about purchase of land from Manohar

Sakharam Patil in Gut No.162/2 to the extent of 3R. for the

purpose of approach road is concerned. The SDO has held that

the person from whom the present petitioner have purchased

the land i.e. Manohar Patil has filed an affidavit on 26.04.2023

stating that there is customary right of way from Gut No.162/2

and the claim of the present petitioner that alternate way is

available to the applicants is not correct. Said Manohar Patil in

his evidence on affidavit has clearly stated that there is a

customary right of way from Gut No.161 and 162 which is

obstructed by the petitioner. The SDO has relied on the

contents of the evidence affidavit filed by Manohar Patil whose

land is allegedly purchased by the son of the petitioner for

approach road, which is claimed to be the customary way by

the applicants. Although it is claimed by the present petitioner

that his son has purchased the land belonging to Manohar

Patil, but no such entry appears to be taken in the 7/12 extract

by the son namely Baliram Patil.       Thus, the claim of the

petitioner has not been accepted by the SDO. The SDO has

also relied on the spot inspection report and the photographs

produced by the respondents herein dated 19.04.2023, which

clearly indicates that the customary way has been destroyed by
                          10              WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt



ploughing the field and destroying the evidence of existence of

road.


11.     Reliance is also placed on the GPS map as well as the

village map which proves the existence of a customary road

between Gut No.161 and 162/2 which has been obstructed

and destroyed by ploughing the field. It needs to be

appreciated that although it is the contention of the petitioner

that in the previous order, the SDO has passed an order in his

favour, whereas the same SDO after remand has reversed the

order on the same set of facts, cannot be accepted for the

reason that while allowing the revision vide order dated

16.01.2024, the SDO has remanded the matter back to the

Tahsildar and directed him to conduct spot inspection and

thereafter pass an order afresh on the basis of documents as

well as inspection, which has been conducted subsequently.

This order has been set aside by this Court by directing SDO to

decide the revision on its own merits, on the basis of material

already pressed into service by the parties. Thus, the

contention of the petitioner that earlier the SDO has passed an

order in his favour does not hold good, as the matter was

remanded by the very order to the Tahsildar for passing fresh

order. So far as the order impugned dated 04.07.2025 is
                            11               WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt



concerned, it has been passed by granting opportunity to all

the contesting parties to lead evidence and placed on record

the documents relied upon and on the basis of the documents,

such as the spot inspection report dated 13.01.2023, the maps

produced on record, the GPS map, the affidavit of Manohar

Patil, who is the land owner of Gut No.162/2 and the 7/12

extracts of the lands, the SDO has passed the order impugned

on merits.      Reliance is also placed on the photographs

produced by the respondents herein dated 19.04.2023, which

are also placed on record along with the affidavit filed by

respondent No.4 which clearly shows that the possession of the

land before ploughing the field and after ploughing the field,

even the village map shows the existence of customary road

between Gut Nos.169/1, 169/2 and 169/3. Thus, I do not find

any merit in the challenge raised by the petitioner. Hence, writ

petition does not deserve any consideration.


12.     The Writ Petition is dismissed by upholding the order

passed by the SDO, dated 04.07.2025.


13.     Civil application is disposed of accordingly.




                                 (MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.)
                                  ...
vmk/-