Bombay High Court
Amir Dilawar SheikhversusThe State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Kolhapur AND ORS
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The injunction under Section 5 is valid as the proceedings are summary, the father is not a necessary party, and the petitioner obstructed the road, leaving no jurisdictional error.
Summary
The petitioner, Uday S. Jagtap, challenged an injunction granted under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act that barred him from using an approach road across his father's land (Gat No. 100/2). He argued that the application was untenable due to non‑joinder of the necessary party (his father, the landowner) and mis‑joinder of parties, and contended that no easement had been transferred to the respondents. The respondents relied on a 2016 agreement between the petitioner's father and one respondent, as well as a panchanama, to show a valid right of way, asserting that the alleged alternate route was a stream unsuitable for ingress. The Court held that proceedings under Section 5 are summary and cannot adjudicate substantive title, that the father was not a necessary party, and that the panchanama clearly showed obstruction by the petitioner, finding no jurisdictional error. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the injunction under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act is valid despite alleged non‑joinder of the necessary party and mis‑joinder of parties.
- Whether the petitioner has a substantive right to the approach road absent a transferred easement.
- Whether the alternative route claimed by the respondents is a viable ingress/egress.
Legislation cited
- Mamlatdars Courts Act — s. 5
Subjects
- injunction
- Section 5
- Mamlatdars' Courts Act
- non‑joinder
- mis‑joinder
- easement
- land dispute
- jurisdiction
Judgment
52-WP-11482-2025=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11482 OF 2025
Digitally
signed by Amir Dilawar Sheikh … Petitioner
UDAY
UDAY SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP Vs.
JAGTAP Date:
2026.08.20
16:09:20
+0530
The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, … Respondents
Kolhapur And Ors
………….
Mr. Nikhil Pawar a/w Rajdeep Shitole for the Petitioner.
Mr. Abhijit Vasantrao Desai for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
………….
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026.
P. C. :
. Heard both sides.
2. The petition is preferred against the concurrent finding of facts
recorded by the authorities below under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act,
granting injunction against the petitioner under Section 5 of the Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application under
Section 5 of the Act was not tenable and it is hit by non-joinder of
necessary party and misjoinder of the parties. The petitioner is not said
to be the owner of Gat No. 100/2 but his father was the owner. The
agreement executed by the father also is stated to be not binding upon
him. It is contended that unless there is transfer of easementary, no right
Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 3
52-WP-11482-2025=.doc
can be claimed by respondent nos.4 and 5. It is submitted that there is
clear cut alternate way for respondent nos. 4 and 5 from the Eastern side
of the property. Both the authorities below are stated to have
committed error of jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned
orders. It is submitted that the existence of road in question is
corroborated by the agreement as well as panchanama. The alleged
alternative road is, in fact, a stream and cannot be used for ingress or
egress. It is submitted that father of the petitioner did not object the
right to use the way.
5. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and with their
assistance I have gone through the judgment and orders passed by both
the authorities below. The petitioner’s father Dilawar M. Sheikh is the
owner of land Gat No. 100/2. The respondent nos.4 and 5 are the
owners of Gat No. 100/3, which is on the Northern side of Gat No.
100/2. An agreement was executed on 27.04.2016 between father of
the petitioner and respondent no.4 - Madhuri R. Kolte, permitting the
respondents to use the approach road, which passes through Gat No.
100/2. The cause of action for respondent nos. 4 and 5 is the obstruction
or impediment at the instance of the petitioner. Father of the petitioner
Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 3
52-WP-11482-2025=.doc
cannot be said to be necessary party.
6. The proceedings under Section 5 of the Act are summary in nature.
The title and the substantive rights cannot be adjudicated in those
proceedings. The proceedings are in the form of stop gap arrangement
to give urgent relief for the members of the agrarian committee. The
submission that the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary party or
misjoinder cannot be countenanced.
7. The panchanama produced on record in unequivocal terms shows
that an obstruction was created by the petitioner. Both the Courts below
have recorded concurrent finding of the facts. I find no error of
jurisdiction and perversity in the impugned orders.
8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )
Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 3
Checking your session…