Bombay High Court
CHANDRAKALA SAHEBRAO KHEDKAR AND ANOTHERversusSHIVAJI BHAGUJI SALUNKE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court upheld the Mamlatdar and Sub‑Divisional orders, finding no ground to disturb the recorded obstruction and dismissing the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a Mamlatdar order directing them to remove an obstruction on a road bordering agricultural lands (Gat Nos. 305 and 313) and a subsequent revision order dismissing their appeal. The respondents argued that an alternate road existed and that electric poles on the boundary precluded the road's use. The High Court held that the factual findings of obstruction, based on a spot panchnama, could not be re‑appreciated in a writ proceeding and that the presence of an alternate road does not excuse obstruction of an existing road. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Mamlatdar and Sub‑Divisional orders and dismissed the writ petition, also rejecting the request to extend the interim order.
Issues considered
- Whether the Mamlatdar's order directing removal of the road obstruction can be set aside on writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the existence of an alternate approach road is a valid defence to the obstruction allegation.
- Whether the Court can re‑appreciate factual findings recorded by the Mamlatdar and Sub‑Divisional Officer.
- Whether the extension of the interim order is permissible.
Legislation cited
- Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 — s. 23
Subjects
- Writ jurisdiction
- Obstruction of road
- Agricultural land
- Spot panchnama
- Alternate road defence
- Mamlatdar Courts Act
- Revision order
- Interim order
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41958
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
904 WRIT PETITION NO. 13741 OF 2017
CHANDRAKALA SAHEBRAO KHEDKAR AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
SHIVAJI BHAGUJI SALUNKE AND OTHERS
...
Mr. V.H. Dighe, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. G.J. Pahilwan, Advocate h/f Mr. N.A. Matkar, Advocate for respondent
Nos.1 to 3
Ms. M.L. Sangit, AGP for respondent Nos.4 and 5
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
ORDER :
. The present petition is filed in order to assail order dated
29.06.2016 passed by the Mamlatdar, Shevgaon in Rasta Case No.11/2016,
whereby the present petitioners are directed to remove obstruction over the
road passing alongside boundary of an agricultural land bearing Gat No.305
and Gat No.313 and the order dated 25.09.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer, Pathardi dismissing revision filed by the petitioner under Section 23
of the Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906 in order to assail the aforesaid order
passed by the Mamlatdar. Present respondent Nos.1 to 3 had filed the above
2 904_WP_13741_2017
Mamlatdar case inter alia seeking relief of removal of obstruction of the
aforesaid road stated to be passing through land bearing Gat Nos.305 and
313. The application was opposed predominantly on the ground that the
respondents/plaintiffs had an alternate road to approach their agricultural
field bearing Gat No.306 from the land of brother of respondent No.1 and
that existence of the said road is also noticed in the spot panchnama.
Another contention raised is that there are electric poles on the boundary
separating field Gat Nos.305 and 313 and as such cart way cannot be
directed from the said road.
2 Both the authorities have recorded concurrent findings as
regards obstruction of the road passing between Gat Nos.305 and 313 by
digging a trench near the land of respondent bearing Gat No.306. It is not in
dispute that there is a field boundary locally known as ‘Bandh’ or ‘Dhura’ in
vernacular alongside the boundary of the land bearing Gat Nos.305 and 313.
The findings with respect to obstruction are recorded on the basis of a spot
panchnama. The findings of both the authorities are based on some evidence
on record, which cannot be re-appreciated by this Court in exercise of writ
jurisdiction. This Court sees no reason to disturb the findings recorded by
both the authorities below. As regards the other contention with respect to
availability of alternate road, perusal of revisional order passed by the Sub
3 904_WP_13741_2017
Divisional Order will demonstrate that in order to approach agricultural land
by using the said road, the respondents/plaintiffs will have to travel around
one kilometer of additional distance. That apart existence of alternate road is
not a valid defence for obstruction of any existing road. An agricultural land
may have more than one approach roads. That by itself cannot be a ground
for any person to obstruct one of the approach roads. In view of the
aforesaid, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the concurrent orders
passed by both the authorities. Writ Petition, therefore, dismissed.
3 Request of extension of interim order dated 21.11.2018 is
rejected, since the petition merely raises disputed question of facts, which
cannot be raised in writ jurisdiction.
( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )
agd
Checking your session…