Bombay High Court

SATISH UTTAM BHONG AND ORSversusRADHA SANTOSH RAUT AND ORS

Decided: 18 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no justifiable reason to interfere with the Tahsildar’s order.

Summary

The petitioners challenged a July 2026 order of the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Baramati, which rejected their revision against a Tahsildar’s order under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 directing removal of an impediment in Rasta Case No.46/2024. They alleged that the spot inspection ordered by the Tahsildar was conducted without serving notice to them, violating Section 19 of the Act. The High Court examined the spot inspection report, which confirmed that a barbed‑wire fence had indeed created an impediment to access. Finding the factual findings of the lower authorities consistent and no justification for interference, the Court held that the order stood. It directed that any grievance should be pursued by filing a substantive suit in a civil court, and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Did the spot inspection and order of the Tahsildar breach Section 19 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 by failing to serve notice?
Was the Sub‑Divisional Officer justified in rejecting the revision of the Tahsildar’s order?
Should the High Court interfere with the Tahsildar’s order under its supervisory jurisdiction?

Legislation cited

Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 — s. 19

Subjects

Mamlatdar’s Courts Act
Section 19
spot inspection
notice requirement
impediment removal
writ petition
supervisory jurisdiction
civil suit remedy

Judgment

                                                                              5 WP-11991-26.DOC

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 11991 OF 2026

                   Satish Uttam Bhong & ors.                                  ..Petitioners

                           Versus

                   Radha Santosh Raut & ors.                              …Respondents


                   Mr. Bhalchandra S Shinde, for the Petitioners.


                                                  CORAM :      N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                  DATE   :     18th SEPTEMBER 2026

                   P.C.:

                   1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
SANJAY BODKHE
                   2.      The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 06 th
Date: 2026.09.19
16:34:53 +0530




                   July, 2026, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati

                   whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners against an

                   order dated 22nd December, 2025 passed by the Tahsildar under

                   the provisions of Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (“Act, 1906”)

                   directing     the    removal   of   impediment    in   a    Rasta    Case

                   No.46/2024, came to be rejected.

                   3.      Mr. Shinde, the learned Counsel for the petitioners,

                   submitted that though the Tahsildar had caused a spot

                   inspection to be carried out, yet, no notice of the said spot

                   inspection was served on the petitioners. Attention of the Court

                   SAINATH, PA                           1/3
                                                     5 WP-11991-26.DOC

was invited to an acknowledgment of service of notice to the

respondents overleaf the notice (Exh. B). It was submitted that,

the petitioners who were Respondents in the said proceedings,

did not receive the notice.

4.      Mr. Shinde further submitted that, the spot inspection of

the disputed property was carried out in breach of the

provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act, 1906.

5.      This Court has perused the spot inspection report and the

copy of rough sketch annexed thereto. The authorities have

clearly recorded that, an impediment was caused in the access

of the respondents by erecting a barbed wire fencing. Both the

existence of the access and impediment thereto by erecting

barbed wire fencing have been consistently found by the

Authorities below. In the backdrop of such concurrent findings,

this Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction, does not

find any justifiable reason to interfere with such order.

6.      In the event the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned

action, the petitioners have the remedy of instituting a

substantive suit before the Civil Court. In case, such a suit is

instituted, the Civil Court may determine the legality and

validity of the impugned action and order of Tahsildar without

being influenced by this order.


SAINATH, PA                        2/3
                                                      5 WP-11991-26.DOC

7.      Subject to aforesaid clarification, the Writ Petition stands

dismissed.



                                          [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH, PA                         3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…