Bombay High Court

BHAUSAHEB RANGNATH SHELARversusTHE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER KARJAT AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The order is modified to permit respondents 3‑8 to use the customary pathway, not the 18‑foot road, as clarified by the panchanama.

Summary

The petitioner, Bhausaheb Rangnath Shelar, challenged a revision order dated 12‑12‑2022 that upheld a Tahsildar’s decision in an easementary suit concerning an 18‑foot road to Dhaman Vasti. Respondents 3‑8 had applied under section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 seeking removal of an obstruction they claimed was created by the petitioner. The Tahsildar ordered a spot inspection and directed the revenue officer to clear the road. The petitioner argued that the Act’s purpose is merely to determine the existence of a pathway and that a panchanama showed a customary pathway (wahivat) which should be preserved rather than the 18‑foot road. The Court modified the Tahsildar’s order, clarifying that respondents 3‑8 may use the customary pathway as per the panchanama, and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Tahsildar’s order to clear the 18‑foot road is proper under section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 in view of the existence of a customary pathway.
Whether the petitioner is liable for the alleged obstruction of the road used by respondents 3‑8.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

easement
pathway
obstruction
Mamlatdars’ Courts Act
section 5(2)
revision
panchanama
customary right
land revenue

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:1557

                                             1                        WP / 3497 / 2023


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              1021 WRIT PETITION NO. 3497 OF 2023

                              BHAUSAHEB RANGNATH SHELAR
                                         VERSUS
                      THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER KARJAT AND OTHERS

                                                 ...
                            Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Abhijit S. More
                          AGP for the respondent – State : Ms. D.S. Jape
                       Advocate for respondents no. 3 to 8 : Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar
                                                 ...

                          CORAM              : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

                          DATE               : 13 JANUARY 2026

              PER COURT :

                          Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.


              2.          By way of present petition, the petitioner assails the order
              dated 12.12.2022 passed by respondent no. 1 – Sub Divisional Officer
              in Revision Application No. 37 of 2022 whereby the Revision filed by
              the petitioner came to be rejected thereby confirming the order passed
              by respondent no. 2 – Tahsildar, Karjat in Easementary Suit No. 85 of
              2021 dated 02.02.2021.


              3.          Respondents no. 3 to 8 filed an application before the
              Tahsildar under section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 with a
              prayer that the obstruction created by petitioner / original respondent
              on 18 feet wide road leading to Dhaman vasti where the respondents
              no. 3 to 8 / applicants reside, should be removed.           The learned
              Tahsildar directed the Revenue Officer to conduct a spot inspection and
              report was submitted.
                                  2                     WP / 3497 / 2023




4.          Mr. More, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondents no. 3 to 8 are using the same road and are obstructing the
petitioner from using it. The object of the Act is confined only to see
whether there is a pathway and whether the same has been
obstructed. When the panchanama reveals that there was customary
pathway, it was expected from the authority to clear the same rather
than clearing the 18 feet road.


5.          Therefore, I am inclined to modify the order passed by the
learned Tahsildar. In view of that, the order passed by Tahsildar, Karjat
dated 02.02.2021 is modified with a clarification that respondents no. 3
to 8 are permitted to use the pathway or wahivat as per the
panchanama.

6.          With the above clarification, the petition is disposed of.




                                  [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                            JUDGE

arp/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…