BAPUSO BHAU KHOT AND ORSversusDADA BALU KHOT AND ORS

                                                       1            13654-2024-WP-Jud=.doc


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13654 OF 2024


          Digitally    1. Bapuso Bhau Khot
          signed by
UDAY    UDAY SHIVAJI
        JAGTAP
SHIVAJI Date:
JAGTAP 2026.09.30
        19:44:46       2. Balaso Bhau Khot
          +0530




                       3. Rajendra Surendra Khot

                       4. Ravindra Surendra Khot

                       5. Satishkumar Mahavir Khot

                       6. Rushikesh Bharat Khot

                       7. Mahavir Anna Chougule

                       8. Adinath Anna Chougule

                       9. Shantinath Anna Chougule

                       10. Ashok Nabhiraj Khot

                       11. Amol Tatoba Hujare

                       12. Kumar Dattatraya Khude                     … Petitioners
                                       Vs.
                       1. Dada Balu Khot

                       2. Kumar Balu Khot

                       3. Bhupal Balu Khot

                       4. Sukumar Balu Khot

                       5. Ramsaheb Balu Khot


                                                       1 of 8
                       Uday S Jagtap
                              2                 13654-2024-WP-Jud=.doc


6. Sou. Vimal Babaso Patil

7. Ld. S.D.O. Karveer Division, Kolhapur

8. Ld. Tahsildar of Karveer                       … Respondents

                          ………..
Mr. Manoj Patil a/w Akash Murudkar, Kaustubh Rayrikar for
the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Koregave a/w Supriya Koregave for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 6.
Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 –
State.
                          ………..


                         CORAM :       SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                         RESERVED ON   : 21.09.2026.
                         PRONOUNCED ON : 30.09.2026.

JUDGMENT :


.        Rule.   Rule is made returnable forthwith with the

consent of the parties. Heard both parties.

2.       Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated

28.02.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer allowing the

revision and thereby quashing order dated 24.01.2024 passed

by the Mamlatdar Court, the petitioners who are the original

applicants have preferred this writ petition.

3.       Learned counsel Mr. Manoj Patil appearing for the


                              2 of 8
Uday S Jagtap
                                 3              13654-2024-WP-Jud=.doc

petitioners submits that the impugned judgment is perverse

because         panchanama    conducted    on    23.02.2024      and

19.01.2022 would clearly indicate existence of the road in

between Gat No. 218 and 225. It is submitted that Revisional

Court committed error of jurisdiction in re-appreciating the

evidence and arriving at a different conclusion than that of

Mamlatdar.        It is submitted that for showing existence of the

approach road in between Gat Nos.218 and 225, revenue

records or the maps may not be available but still the road can

be made out. The photographs produced on record have not

been dealt with by the Revisional Authority.

4.       Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Koregave would submit

that the Application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts

Act was not tenable because there existed no road.              It is

further submitted that two alternate roads are available from

the Northern side, which are being used since many years. It is

further submitted that owners of land Gat No. 207 and 220 is

common and the alternate roads are being used by them. It is

further submitted that the Government has provided grants for

Northern side road located abetting Gat No. 207. It is further

submitted that no evidence was produced to disclose existence

                                3 of 8
Uday S Jagtap
                               4               13654-2024-WP-Jud=.doc

of the road and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.       I have considered rival submissions of the parties.        I

have gone through panchanama dated 19.01.2022 as well as

23.02.2024. The statements of the witnesses and the

photographs of the google maps are produced on record. The

petitioners are claiming approach road in between Gat No. 218

and Gat No. 225.       The respondents are the owners of Gat

No.225. The petitioners are the owners of Gat Nos. 219 to

224.        No village map or revenue record is produced by

petitioners showing existence of the road claimed by the them.

6.       The claim of the petitioners is that there existed

approach road of 12 feet, South-North to connect East–West

Sangavadewadi to Kodoli road, which is of 20 feet road.

Panchanama conducted on 19.01.2022 would clearly indicate

that obstruction is created on the road which connects Jakubai

Panand and Gat No.225. A more elaborate panchanama was

conducted on 23.02.2024 which would clearly indicates in its

map as well as text the existence of the road claimed by the

petitioners and the obstruction in it. This panchanama is

discarded by the Revisional Authority.     The statements of the



                              4 of 8
Uday S Jagtap
                               5             13654-2024-WP-Jud=.doc

witnesses which would support the claim of the petitioners are

also overlooked by the Revisional Authority in holding that

there existed no approach road as claimed by the petitioners,

which is grave error of jurisdiction.

7.       The Revisional Authority accepted the theory of the

respondents regarding existence of alternate road on the

Northern side of Gat No.207. However, the issue before the

Mamlatdar Court was as to whether there existed any road in

between Gat No. 218 and 225. Mere existence of some road

for common user of Gat No.220 or 207 on the Northern side

would not nullify the claim of the petitioners. I find that the

petitioners have produced comparatively more evidence to

indicate existence of the road claimed by them. The Revisional

Authority committed perversity in taking different view.

8.       The funds given by the Government for construction or

the repairy of the road which runs from Northern boundary of

Gat No. 207, is not sufficient to deny the existence of the road

claimed by the petitioners.     The Google maps produced on

record would also indicate that there was a road and the

possibility of destroying it by the respondents cannot be ruled



                              5 of 8
Uday S Jagtap
                                6                13654-2024-WP-Jud=.doc

out.

9.       My attention is adverted to the judgment of co-ordinate

bench in case of Anjali w/o Vitthal Ingole Vs. Sub-Divisional

Officer, Washim and Anr. (2015) 2 Mh.L.J. 651 wherein the

scope of the Revisional Authority under Section 23(2) of the

Mamlatdars’      Courts   Act   has      been   stipulated.   Having

understood the scope, as per the ratio laid down therein I find

that Revisional Authority in the present case has exceeded in

its jurisdiction.   Reliance is placed on the judgment of the co-

ordinate bench in the case of Naanasaheb Yashwant Kalekar &

Ors. Vs. Dattatraya Maruti Darandale (in Writ Petition No.

3421 of 2023, decided on 13.09.2023) to buttress that village

map is not the only material which can be said to be available

for showing way. I have gone through paragraph no.17 of the

judgment and in the present case also I have already observed

that other material is produced by the petitioners to make out

existence of the road.

10.      Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the

judgment of S.P. Chengal Varaya Naidu (dead) by LRs. vs.

Jagannath (dead) by LRs. and Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1.             The law



                                6 of 8
Uday S Jagtap
                                 7               13654-2024-WP-Jud=.doc

laid down therein is undisputed. If the judgment is obtained

by fraud, it has to be treated as nullity and it can be questioned

in collateral proceedings. However, no case is made out by the

respondents that petitioners had obtained judgment of the

Mamlatdar by exercising any fraud. This judgment will not

help the respondents.

11.      The proceedings before the Mamlatdar Courts are

summary in nature and those are resorted to as a stopgap

arrangement. The aggrieved party can always resort to

substantial proceedings to establish the rights and liabilities. I

find that impugned order is unsustainable.

12.      I therefore, pass following order.

                              ORDER

(i)      Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).

(ii)     There shall be no order as to costs.



                                         (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)


13.      After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned

counsel appearing for the respondents seeks suspension of



                                7 of 8
Uday S Jagtap
                               8              13654-2024-WP-Jud=.doc

execution of the order for a period of eight (8) weeks so as to

enable the respondents to approach the Apex Court.            It is

submitted that there was no stay to the order passed by Sub-

Divisional Officer on 28.02.2024.

14.      The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

opposes the request.

15.      The parties are agriculturists. I have already observed

that the petitioners have made out the case of existence of the

road in between Gat Nos.218 and 225 and the obstructions

therein. No case is made out to suspend the operation of the

judgment passed today. The request is rejected.



                                    (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)




                              8 of 8
Uday S Jagtap