Bombay High Court
SHAHODEV RAOSAHEB MAHARNOR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Tahsildar's findings were not supported by the panchanama and therefore the orders were quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the order of the Tahsildar, Georai, which confirmed the existence of a customary cartway and its obstruction, alleging that the supporting panchanama did not mention any such way. They contended that the Tahsildar’s finding was not based on the material on record. Respondent No.4 argued that the fencing noted in the panchanama implied obstruction of a customary way. The Court examined the panchanama and found no clear reference to a cartway, concluding that the Tahsildar’s findings were unsupported. Accordingly, the Court partially allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, permitting interim use of the pathway by Respondent No.4.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tahsildar's finding of existence of a customary cartway and its obstruction, not reflected in the panchanama, is legally sustainable
- Whether the orders passed by the Tahsildar and confirmed by the Additional Collector should be quashed
- Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication with a fresh spot inspection
Subjects
- Land revenue
- Customary cartway
- Panchanama
- Spot inspection
- Tahsildar
- Additional Collector
- Quash order
- Remand
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:16439
Dilwale 1 22-WP-2990-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
22 WRIT PETITION NO. 2990 OF 2016
Shahodev Raosaheb Maharnor And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Yuvraj Kakde h/f Mr. Gaware Niteen V.
AGP for Respondents: Mr. D. R. Korde
Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Natu Sharad V.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 02.04.2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The petitioners are assailing the order dated 27/01/2016 passed by
the Additional Collector, Beed in Case No.2015/CD/Appeal/CR/50
thereby confirming the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by Tahsildar,
Georai in Case No.2014/Jama/2/KAVI.
3. Mr. Kakde holding for Mr. Gaware, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that pursuant to the application filed by respondent
No.4, the Tahsildar directed spot inspection through the Revenue
Authorities and a panchanama was prepared. Inviting attention to the
said panchanama dated 16.06.2015, it is submitted that there is no
specific mention regarding existence of any cartway. On the contrary, it is
submitted that due to pendency of proceedings before this Court, final
Dilwale 2 22-WP-2990-16.odt
decision was not taken, however, the Tahsildar recorded a finding
regarding existence of a customary way and obstruction thereof, which is
not in consonance with finding given in the panchanama.
4. Mr. Natu, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 supports the
impugned orders and submits that the panchanama refers to fencing,
from which obstruction to the customary way can be inferred.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the panchanama (at page No.29), it appears that there is no clear or
specific reference regarding existence of a customary cartway or
obstruction thereof. The panchanama rather indicates existence of
fencing on the boundaries of the survey numbers. Despite of this, the
Tahsildar has recorded a finding regarding existence of the cartway,
which is not supported by the material on record.
6. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the Tahsildar and
confirmed by the Additional Collector are not sustainable. Hence, the
following order is passed :
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 14.08.2015 passed by Tahsildar, Georai
in Case No.2014/Jama/2/KAVI and order dated 27/01/2016
passed by the Additional Collector, Beed in Case
No.2015/CD/Appeal/CR/50 are hereby quashed and set aside.
Dilwale 3 22-WP-2990-16.odt
(iii) The matter is remanded to the Tahsildar, Georai for fresh
adjudication. The Tahsildar shall issue notice to all concerned
parties, carry out fresh spot inspection, prepare panchanama and
decide the proceedings afresh by giving finding upon existence of
pathway and obstruction thereto, in accordance with law, within a
period of four (4) months from today.
(iv) By way of interim arrangement, respondent No.4 is permitted to
use the pathway in question. The said arrangement shall continue
till the Tahsildar decides the matter afresh.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Checking your session…