Bombay High Court
VILAS GULAB WAGHversusSATYABHAMA GORAKH SHINDE
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The orders directing removal of the obstruction were within the Mamlatdar’s jurisdiction under Section 5 and did not constitute creation of a new road, and the plaint complied with Section 7, so the petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner challenged the order of the Mamlatdar, Dhule Rural, which directed removal of an obstruction on a road leading to the respondent's agricultural land, and the subsequent revision order of the Sub‑Divisional Officer. The petitioner argued that under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 the Mamlatdar cannot create a new road and that the plaint lacked an affidavit as required by Section 7. The Court examined the orders and found that they merely directed removal of an existing obstruction, not the creation of a new road, and held that Section 7 does not mandate an affidavit for an informal plaint. Consequently, the Court concluded there was no jurisdictional error or procedural defect. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the Mamlatdar, exercising powers under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, can create a new road in favour of a plaintiff.
- Whether the plaint filed under the Act must be supported by an affidavit as per Section 7.
Legislation cited
- Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 — s. 5, 7
Subjects
- Mamlatdar jurisdiction
- Section 5
- Section 7
- removal of obstruction
- road
- writ petition
- revision
- agricultural land
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40827
1 914-WP-10659-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
914 WRIT PETITION NO. 10659 OF 2021
Vilas Gulab Wagh
VERSUS
Satyabhama Gorakh Shinde
…..
Mr. Amol Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. M. L. Sangit, AGP for Respondent – State.
…..
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER 2026
PER COURT :
1. The present petition is filed in order to challenge the order dated
22 March 2021 passed by the Tehsildar/Mamlatdar, Dhule Rural in
Vahiwat Case No.7 of 2020 and the order dated 8 July 2021 passed by
Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhule Region, in Revision Application No.
RTS/Revision/30/2021.
2. Respondent No.1 has instituted the aforesaid case, inter alia,
seeking directions for removal of obstruction over a road leading to his
agricultural land. The present petitioner opposed the said application.
However, upon considering the spot inspection report and other evidence,
the application came to be allowed.
3. The present petitioner preferred revision a before the Sub-
Divisional Officer, which also came to be dismissed.
Kiran Kawre
2 914-WP-10659-2021.odt
4. The present petition is filed in order to assail the aforesaid orders.
It is not in dispute that the impugned orders have already been
implemented and the obstruction on the subject road is removed.
5. The contention of learned advocate for the petitioner is that in
exercise of powers conferred under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts
Act, 1906, a new road cannot be created in favour of the plaintiff. The
contention is that the provision only enables the Mamlatdar to order
removal of obstruction on an existing road. It is contended that in
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 5, a new road is granted, and as
such, the order is without jurisdiction.
6. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar.
Perusal of the order indicates that directions are issued for removal of
obstruction on the road. The contention raised that a new road is created
in the absence of any in jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Act, therefore,
cannot be accepted.
7. The learned advocate for the petitioner also makes a submission
that the plaint is not supported by an affidavit and, as such it is not in
compliance of Section 7.
8. Perusal of Section 7 of the Act will indicate that the plaint under
the Act is not required to be supported by an affidavit. The provisions
indicate that in case the plaint is informal in nature, the Mamlatdar is
Kiran Kawre
3 914-WP-10659-2021.odt
required to record the statement of verification of the plaintiff in order to
ascertain the cause of action canvassed in the informal plaint. The plaint
otherwise appears to be in order.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid, no case for interference is made
out. The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[ ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ]
Kiran Kawre
Checking your session…