NAMDEO ANAJI ALEKAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECREARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:43181
                                                       1
                                                                       924-wp-12276-2023

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 12276 OF 2023
                                    Namdeo Anaji Alekar And Others
                                                VERSUS
                     The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secreary And
                                                 Others
                                                   ...
                     Mr. D. P. Palodkar, Advocate for the Petitioners
                     Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent-State
                     Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for Respondent nos.4 and 5
                                                  …..
                                          CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2026
                     P.C. :-

                     .         Holding that the respondents blocked the natural flow
                     of the Government Nala which was adjacent to petitioners’
                     land, the petitioners took recourse to Section 4 and 5 of the
                     Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (“the Act of 1906” for brevity)
                     seeking directions to the respondents to restore the natural
                     flow of the Nala adjoining gut nos.1016 and 1058 at mauje
                     Shrigonda.

                     2.        Pursuant to the application, the Mamlatdar conducted a
                     panchnama and afforded an opportunity of hearing to both
                     the sides. By order dated 29.04.2022, the Mamlatdar allowed
                     the said application and directed the respondents to clear the
                     natural flow of the Nala adjacent to gut nos.1016 and 1058.

                     3.        Feeling   aggrieved   thereby,   the   respondents   took
                     recourse to Section 23 of the Act of 1906 before the Revisional
                     Authority @ Sub Divisional Officer, Shrigonda-Parner and
                     challenged the order passed by the Mamlatdar. The
                     contention of the respondents was that (i) they had never
                     blocked the natural flow of the Nala; and (ii) the panchnama
                                2
                                               924-wp-12276-2023

was bogus one, having been prepared behind their back and
without any notice to them. After hearing both the parties, by
decision and order dated 24.04.2023, the Revisional Authority
allowed the Revision Application partly and relegated the
matter back to the Mamlatdar for fresh consideration.

4.    Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/original
applicants are before this court.

5.    Mr. D. P. Palodkar, learned Advocate for the petitioners
would submit that, since the application was filed taking
recourse to Section 5(1) of the Act of 1906, the Revisional
Authority has dealt with the revision under Section 5(2) of the
Act. He submits that relegation of the matter back to the
Mamlatdar only on the basis of the findings under Section
5(2) is absolutely misplaced and needs to be quashed and set
aside. With this, Mr. Palodkar, learned Advocate prays to
allow the Writ Petition.

6.    Per contra, Mr. R. R. Karpe, learned Advocate for the
respondents would stand by the reasoning rendered by the
Revisional Authority. He would vehemently point out from the
recitals of the panchnama that the same was prepared behind
the back of the respondents. He would submit that it is only
after demonstrating to the Revisional Authority to its
satisfaction that the panchnama was prepared behind the back
of his clients, the said relegation was ordered. Mr. Karpe,
learned Advocate for the respondents would submit that it is a
fit case wherein the Mamlatdar should conduct the inquiry
de novo affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
Thus, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.
                                3
                                                924-wp-12276-2023

7.    I have heard learned advocates for respective parties
extensively. Apparently, the Revisional Authority in its
judgment and order has referred to Section 5(2) of the Act.
There is no discussion as regards to the case under Section
5(1) of the Act. True, after recording that the panchnama was
prepared behind the back of the revision petitioners, the
Revisional Authority has relegated the matter back to the
Mamlatdar    for   fresh   consideration.   However,     it   was
incumbent on the part of the Revisional Authority to render
findings as regards to main application under Section 5(1) of
the Act.

8.    In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to pass
following order:

                            ORDER

      a.    The writ petition stands allowed.
      b.    The order dated 24.0402023 passed by the
      Revisional Authority in Revision Application
      No.200 of 2022 is quashed and set aside.
      c.    The matter is relegated back to the
      Revisional Authority to hear the parties and
      render its findings afresh.
      d.    Let this job be done by the Revisional
      Authority within a period of two months from the
      date of appearance of the parties.
      e.    Both the parties are at consensus to appear
      before the Revisional Authority on 05.10.2026.
      No separate notice of appearance is necessary.
                                    4
                                                     924-wp-12276-2023

        f.       Suffice to note, the order passed by the
        First Authority/Mamlatdar shall remain stayed till
        final decision in the Revision Proceedings.
        g.       All contentions kept open.
        h.       Needless to mention, this Court has not
        observed on merits of the case of any side.
        i.       Writ petition stands disposed of.



                                        ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026