MUNNA SIDA PADALKAR AND OTHERSversusSUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:9631
                                               1 of 3                    17-WP.248.2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               17 WRIT PETITION NO. 248 OF 2021

                               MUNNA SIDA PADALKAR AND OTHERS
                                              VERSUS
                              SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS
                                                 ...
               Mr. P. B. Waghmare and Mr. Rajratna U. Khandare, Advocate for the
               Petitioners.
               Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
               Mr. G. S. Dahale and Mr. D. R. Ghonge, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                                                 ...

                                       CORAM :          SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE     :       4th MARCH 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.       Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

               2.       By the present petition, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the

               order dated 07.09.2018, passed by the learned Tahsildar or Mamlatdar,

               Muktainagar, in Case No.Vahivat/09/2017 and order dated 29.10.2020

               passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusaval Division, Bhusaval in

               Case No.Vahivat/Revision/65/2018, thereby confirming the order

               dated 07.09.2018 passed by Tahsildar, Muktainagar in Vahivat Case

               No.9/2017.


               3.       Mr. P. B. Waghmare, learned Advocate for the Petitioners

               submits that the learned Tahsildar without considering the village map,

               allowed the application filed by Respondent No.3 under section 5(2) of

               the Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906.             He also submits that the
                                 2 of 3                 17-WP.248.2021




panchanama which was prepared by the Tahsildar is contrary to the

village map. He invited my attention to the village map by submitting

that Respondent No.3 is having an alternate road and further he

submits that the panchanama does not specifically state whether there

was a customary pathway/cartway in existence. He also invited my

attention to the panchanama and submitted that as there was no

customary road on the village map, Tahsildar ought not to have

allowed the application filed by Respondent No.3. He further submits

that in a revision before SDO all these grounds were raised but the

SDO has not considered the same. Therefore, he prays to allow the

writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar.


4.        Per contra, Mr. G. S. Dahale and Mr. D. R. Ghonge, learned

Advocate for Respondent No.3 and Mr. B. A. Shinde, learned AGP for

Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State support the order passed by the

Tahsildar and SDO.


5.        Having gone through the record which is placed with the

petition with the assistance of learned Advocates for the respective

parties. I have gone through the order passed by the Tahsildar and

SDO, more particularly, the village map as well as the panchnama.

After going through the village map, which is at page 37 and spot

inspection report at page No.48, it reveals that there was a cartway
                                          3 of 3                 17-WP.248.2021




          starting from northern side of Satod Ruikheda Road towards the field

          of Ashok Kotecha and then Sanju Padalkar. The said road goes to the

          field of Balu Bathu, Pundlik Sida, Munna Sida, Tanhu            Sida and

          Sahebrao Omkar.       The said cartway is blocked by ploughing.

          Therefore, as per the spot panchanama, which was conducted in

          presence of the parties and after hearing all the concerned, the

          Tahsildar passed an order dated 17.09.2018 by observing that, there

          was no any further road to reach the land of Respondent No.3. Only

          because there was no reference of availability of cartway on the village

          map, the said cannot be a ground to disbelieve the panchanama and to

          set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and SDO.


          6.        In view of that, I do not find any perversity in the order

          dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Tahsildar, Muktainagar and order

          dated 11.11.2019 passed by learned SDO, Bhusawal.


          7.        Hence, the present petition is dismissed.     No order as to

          costs.

                                            (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef