SUVED ABDUL RASHID DESHMUKH AND OHERSversusSUMANBAI BHAGWAN PATIL THROUGH GENERAO PAOWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:4379
              Dilwale                                        1                127-WP-11023 -2023.odt




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                127 WRIT PETITION NO. 11023 OF 2023

                                Suved Abdul Rashid Deshmukh & Others
                                              VERSUS
                                  Sumanbai Bhagwan Patil& Another
                                                       ...
             Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Wani Girish V.
             Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Patil Vinod Prakash
                                                       ...


                                       CORAM          : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE           : 28.01.2026

             PER COURT :
             1          Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

             2.         By the present petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated

             18.03.2021 passed by the Tahsildar, Pachora under Section 5(2) of the

             Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906. The said order was confirmed by order

             dated 24.05.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pachora in

             Vahivat/Revision/65/2021.

             3.         Mr. Wani, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the

             petitioners were not afforded proper opportunity of hearing and that

             there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted

             that no notice was served upon the petitioners and, as a result, they were

             not present when the panchanama was carried out. It is further submitted

             that the panchanama was prepared behind the back of the petitioners.

             Learned counsel pointed out that though the Tahsildar observed that
 Dilwale                                       2               127-WP-11023 -2023.odt


notices were served, the petitioners were residing elsewhere and notices

were issued at a place where they were not residing. He therefore

submits that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the Tahsildar for

fresh decision after granting due opportunity to the petitioners.

4.         Per contra, Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents, opposed the petition by submitting that despite service of

notice, the petitioners failed to participate in the proceedings. It is

submitted that the petitioners deliberately remained absent when the

panchanama was conducted and also before the Tahsildar. He therefore

submits that both the authorities have concurrently recorded findings

against the petitioners and no interference is warranted.

5.         Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the

record, it reveals that the petitioners were not present when the

panchanama was conducted and also at the time when the Tahsildar

decided the proceedings. It further appears that the petitioners did not

submit their reply before the Tahsildar. In the facts and circumstances of

the case, it would be appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the

petitioners in the interest of justice.

6.         In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order

dated 18.03.2021 passed by the Tahsildar, Pachora and order dated

24.05.2022        passed    by   the   Sub-Divisional   Officer,   Pachora        in

Vahivat/Revision/65/2021 are quashed and set aside. The matter is

remitted to the Tahsildar, Pachora to decide the proceedings afresh, after
 Dilwale                                     3              127-WP-11023 -2023.odt


granting due opportunity of hearing to all the parties, in accordance with

law.

7.         The parties shall appear before the Tahsildar, Pachora on

16.02.2026.

8.         During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tahsildar, the

petitioners shall not obstruct the use of the way from the southern

boundary of Survey No.234.

                                           [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                     JUDGE