Bombay High Court
BHARAT MAROTI AMBHORE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court held that the Mamlatdar’s order and the subsequent revision order were invalid because the panchnama did not establish a pre‑existing pathway, and therefore the writ petition was allowed and the orders quashed.
Summary
The petitioners, owners of agricultural land Gut No.159 in Nanded, were sued by neighboring landowners (respondents) who claimed a pre‑existing usage pathway (Wahivat Rasta) through their land and sought its clearance under Sections 4 and 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906. A panchnama was taken in May 2021, resulting in a temporary settlement allowing the respondents to use the land for the sugarcane harvest, but it did not record any pre‑existing pathway or obstruction. Despite this, the Tahsildar issued an order on 31‑May‑2022 directing the pathway be cleared, and the Sub‑Divisional Officer upheld it on revision. The petitioners challenged these orders, arguing the panchnama was insufficient to support a finding of a pre‑existing right of way. The High Court held that the panchnama did not establish such a right, the Mamlatdar’s order and the revision order were erroneous, and consequently quashed both orders, allowing the writ petition. An interim order permitting the respondents to use the footway for six weeks was also continued.
Issues considered
- Whether the panchnama under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, established the existence of a pre‑existing usage pathway and its obstruction.
- Whether the Mamlatdar/Tahsildar could validly order the clearance of a pathway absent such a finding.
- Whether the revision authority erred in upholding the Mamlatdar’s order.
- Whether the petitioners must approach a civil court for determination of their civil rights.
Legislation cited
- Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 — s. 23, 4, 5
Subjects
- usage pathway
- Wahivat Rasta
- Mamlatdar’s Courts Act
- panchnama
- revision petition
- civil rights
- agricultural land
- interim relief
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42878
1
949-wp-12461-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12461 OF 2024
Bharat Maroti Ambhore And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
...
Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh h/f Mr. A. D. Kawre, Advocate for
the Petitioners
Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent-State
Mr. S. R. Bagul h/f Mr. B. N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for
Respondent nos.6 to 17
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
. Petitioners are the owners and possessors of agricultural
land bearing Gut No.159 at village Sawargaon, Taluka
Ardhapur, District Nanded. Respondents are the owners and
possessors of their agricultural lands bearing Gut number 162,
164, 165 and 167. The respondents initiated proceedings
taking recourse to Section 4 and 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts
Act, 1906 (“the Act of 1906” for brevity), before the Tahsildar
contending that they had a usage pathway, (Wahivat Rasta) to
access to their agricultural lands through Gut Nos.159 and
160.
2
949-wp-12461-2024
2. The respondents further contended that the petitioners
obstructed the said pathway, and hence they were constrained
to take recourse to the proceedings under the Act of 1906.
Pursuant to the application, the Tahsildar arranged
Panchanama. Accordingly, a Panchanama was conducted in
May 2021. On the same day it appears that some settlement
was arrived at between the parties whereby the petitioners
permitted the respondents to access their agricultural lands
for the ongoing sugarcane harvesting season. Thereafter, the
proceedings were not pursued further.
3. However, on 31.05.2022, the Tahsildar, Ardhapur @
Mamlatdar passed an order thereby observing that there
existed a usage pathway for the applicants therein through the
land of the petitioners and directions were issued to clear the
said usage way. It was also directed to the Circle Officer and
Tahsildar to clear the road and to take it on record of the 7/12
extract.
4. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Revision
Petition under Section 23 before the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Nanded. By order dated 02.08.2024, the Sub-Divisional
Officer concurred with the findings recorded by the first
authority and the Revision came to be dismissed.
3
949-wp-12461-2024
5. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before
this Court.
6. I have heard both the sides extensively and also perused
their pleadings. Suffice to note, the proceedings under the
Mamlatdar’s Courts Act are for immediate relief. The only
thing that was to be established is that there was a pre-
existing pathway which was blocked subsequently, and hence
direction could be issued by the Mamlatdar to clear such
pathway. It is a trite law that the parties are required to
agitate their civil rights before the Civil Court for their desired
purpose corresponding to their rival rights. What is crucial for
passing an order under the Act of 1906 for directing to
remove an obstruction or to clear a pathway is the Panchnama
and the observations recorded therein.
7. The panchnama dated 20.12.2021 is produced before
me at page no.18. Upon careful perusal of the said
panchnama, it does not appear that the Panchas have
recorded the pre-existance of pathway or that such pathway
was subsequently obstructed. What is recorded therein is
merely the contentions of the parties. The panchnama
concludes with the purported settlement whereby the
petitioners permitted the respondents to use their land for
4
949-wp-12461-2024
accessing their respective agricultural lands for the then
prevailing sugarcane harvesting season.
8. On the basis of the above, the first authority has passed
the order dated 31.05.2022. I find that the panchnama is
apparently a deficit one to bring the first authority to the
conclusion that there was a pre-existing pathway and the
applicants could take recourse of Section 4 and 5 of the Act of
1906. In fact, since the panchnama procedure ended with an
amicable settlement between the parties, the Tahsildar would
have been justified if he would have reopened the matter and
have conducted a correct panchnama. However, the same
exercise is not done and the order dated 31.05.2022 came to
be passed.
9. I am of the considered view that on the basis of such
panchnama, the order could not stand. In view of this, I find
that the Mamlatdar @ the Tahsildar, erred in passing the
order dated 31.05.2022. The Sub-Divisional officer i.e.
Revisional Authority also erred in not considering the matter
in this perspective. In view of this, I find that a successful case
is made out by the petitioners to call interference in the orders
passed by both the authorities. Hence, the following order:
5
949-wp-12461-2024
ORDER
a. Writ Petition stands allowed.
b. The order dated 31.04.2022 passed by the
Mamlatdar @ Tahsildar and the order dated
02.08.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
are quashed and set aside.
c. Suffice to note, the parties are at liberty to
approach the Civil Court for establishment of
their civil rights, if so advised.
d. If parties approach to the Civil Court, the
observations made by the Authorities or by this
Court would remain to the extent of present
proceedings.
e. Writ Petition stands disposed of.
10. Mr. S. R. Bagul, Advocate for the respondents submits
that by way of an interim relief this Court permitted the
respondents to use petitioners’ land as a footway.
11. The said interim relief is continued for a period of
further six weeks from today.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2026
Checking your session…