Bombay High Court

SARJERAO DAGDU GAVHANE AND OTEHRSversusBABASAHEB VITTHAL GORDE AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The Tahsildar's order is unsustainable and is quashed, with the matter remanded for fresh, reasoned consideration.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the Tahsildar's order dated 30.03.2016 that rejected an application filed by respondents under section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906, a decision later affirmed by the Sub‑Divisional Officer. The petitioners argued that the Tahsildar’s finding of a road between specific Gats was recorded cryptically and without any reasoning. The respondents defended the orders, asserting they were proper. The Court held that the Tahsildar’s order lacked cogent reasons and the Sub‑Divisional Officer merely rubber‑stamped it without independent appraisal, rendering both orders unsustainable. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders, remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration with a proper hearing, and directed a decision within six months.

Issues considered

Whether the Tahsildar's order under sec 5(2) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906, is valid when it is recorded without reasons.
Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer's confirmation of the Tahsildar's order without independent appreciation is sustainable.

Legislation cited

Mamlatdars’s Courts Act, 1906 — s. 5(2)

Subjects

Writ petition
Tahsildar
Sub‑Divisional Officer
Mamlatdar's Courts Act
Reasoned order
Quashing
Remand

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:11975
Dilwale 1 105-WP-2706-18.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

105 WRIT PETITION NO. 2706 OF 2018

Sarjerao Dagdu Gavhane And Others
VERSUS
Babasaheb Vitthal Gorde And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Patekar Narendra B
AGP for Respondents: Mr. D. R. Korde
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Andhale Sandip R
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 18.03.2026

PER COURT :
1. Heard learned counsel respective parties.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2016

passed by the Tahsildar, Shevgaon, whereby application filed by

respondent no. 1 to 6 under sec 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’s Courts Act,

1906 came to be rejected. The said order came to be confirmed by order

dated 06.12.2017 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Pathardi.

3. Mr. Patekar, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention

to the panchanama at page No. 27 and submitted that the spot clearly

indicates the existence of a cartway between Gat No. 231 and Gat No.

318/1. He has also relied upon the village map at page No. 58, which,

according to him, reflects that a road is available between the said Gat

numbers. It is submitted that the Tahsildar has allowed the application
Dilwale 2 105-WP-2706-18.odt

filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 by observing that a road exists, however,

the said finding is recorded in a very cryptic manner without assigning

any reasons.

4. Mr. Andhale, learned counsel for the respondents supports the

orders passed by Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal

of the impugned orders, it appears that the Tahsildar has not recorded

any cogent reasons while allowing the application filed by respondent

Nos. 1 to 6. The order passed by the Tahsildar is thus unsustainable,

being devoid of proper reasoning. The Sub-Divisional Officer has also

confirmed the said order without independently appreciating the material

on record. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

(i) The petition is partly allowed.

(ii) The order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Shevgaon and

the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Pathardi are

quashed and set aside.

(iii) The matter is remanded to the Tahsildar, Shevgaon for fresh

consideration.

(iv) The Tahsildar shall issue notice to all concerned parties, grant them

an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter decide the proceedings afresh

in accordance with law.
Dilwale 3 105-WP-2706-18.odt

(v) All contentions of the parties are kept open.

(vi) The Tahsildar shall decide the proceedings as expeditiously as

possible and preferably within a period of six months from today.

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…