Bombay High Court
VIJAY BHAUSAHEB SHINDE AND OTHERSversusFAKIRA CHILLOBA SHINDE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The panchnama clearly shows a customary pathway existed and was obstructed, so the orders of the Tahsildar and Sub‑Divisional Officer are valid and the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petition arose from an order of the Tahsildar, Rahuri, confirming the existence of a 2‑3 foot customary pathway on the boundary of Gats 224 and 225 and directing the removal of an obstruction allegedly caused by the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the panchnama produced under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 did not show any such pathway and that the revenue authorities had acted perversely. The respondents supported the Tahsildar’s and Sub‑Divisional Officer’s findings. The High Court examined the panchnama and found it clearly recorded the presence of the pathway and the obstruction, thereby affirming the competence of the Tahsildar to act under the Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no ground for interference under Article 227, and noted that a pending civil suit would decide the matter independently.
Issues considered
- Whether the panchnama evidence establishes the existence of a customary pathway on the disputed land.
- Whether the Tahsildar and Sub‑Divisional Officer acted perversely in ordering the removal of the obstruction, warranting interference under Article 227.
- Whether the pending civil suit affects the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities in this writ petition.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
- Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 — s. 5
Subjects
- customary pathway
- obstruction
- Mamlatdar jurisdiction
- Section 5
- panchnama
- Article 227
- revenue law
- land dispute
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:781
911-WP-13307-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
911 WRIT PETITION NO. 13307 OF 2019
Vijay Bhausaheb Shinde And Others
VERSUS
Fakira Chilloba Shinde And Others
…..
Mr. Darandale Ganesh P., Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. V. V. Tarde, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for the Respondents – State
…..
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 08.01.2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. The present proceeding arises out of the order dated 21.12.2017
passed by the Tahsildar, Rahuri in Rasta Case No.14/2016, whereby an
application filed by Respondent No.1 came to be allowed and the said
order dated 04.07.2018 came to be confirmed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Shrirampur, in Revision Application No.14/2018.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the
Panchnama carried out pursuant to an Application filed by the
Respondent No.1 under Sections 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906
does not reflect that any pathway was in existence. He, therefore,
submits that both the Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer failed to
consider this material aspects of the matter and recorded findings
which are perverse.
Sameer/January-2026 1
911-WP-13307-2019.odt
4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents supports the
order passed by the Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer.
5. I have gone through the order passed by both the authorities.
More particularly, the Panchnama, placed on record at Page No.32 of
the paper-book of the present petition, clearly reveals that there was a
pathway measuring 2 to 3 feet on the boundary of Gat Nos.224 and
225. It thus reveals that, a road was in existence and that there was
obstruction at the hands of the Petitioners. The said fact was duly
considered by both the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer.
6. The very object of the Act is to ensure that where a customary
pathway was in existence and an obstruction is caused thereto, the
Tahsildar / Mamlatdar is competent to remove such obstruction. In
the present case, the existence of the road and obstruction has been
clearly noted in the Panchnama. As both the authorities have
concurrently held against the Petitioners, I do not find any perversity
in the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Tahsildar, Rahuri in Rasta
Case No.14/2016 and order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Shrirampur, in Revision Application No.14/2018,
warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. Hence, the Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
8. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the civil
suit is pending between the parties. It is made clear that, the civil
court shall decide the matter independently on its own merits, without
being influenced by the findings recorded by the revenue authorities.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Sameer/January-2026 2
Checking your session…