GOVIND NARAYAN SHINDEversusTHE COLLECTOR PARBHANI AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:31656
                                                 -1-
                                                                        72-wp-3845-2025

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 3845 OF 2025

                                  GOVIND NARAYAN SHINDE
                                         VERSUS
                            THE COLLECTOR PARBHANI AND OTHERS

                                                  ......
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Dr. Anagha N. Pedgaonkar
              AGP for Respondent - State : Mr. R. K. Ingole
              Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : Mr. Shahaji B. Ghatol Patil
                                                  ...…

                                            CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 27th JULY, 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.          The present writ petition takes exception to order dated

              17.10.2023 passed below Exhibit-5 by Civil Judge Senior Division,

              Parbhani in R.C.S. No.371 of 2023 as well as order dated 12.02.2025

              passed by District Judge, Parbhani in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2023.



              2.          The petitioner suffered order under Section 143 of

              Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (for short, “MLR Code”), which is

              confirmed by Sub Divisional Officer. The petitioner thereafter filed

              Regular Civil Suit No. 371 of 2023 before learned Civil Judge Senior

              Division, Parbhani for perpetual injunction along with application for

              grant of temporary injunction against respondents from constructing any

              road in terms of order dated 26.04.2023 passed by Tahsildar/ Mamlatdar
                                      -2-
                                                               72-wp-3845-2025

under Section 143 of MLR Code. The Trial Court after considering rival

contentions rejected petitioner’s application for temporary injunction.

The petitioner filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2023 before District

Judge, Parbhani. Learned District Judge confirmed the order passed by

Trial Court. In this backdrop, present writ petition is filed.



3.           Learned Advocate appearing for petitioner would submit that

respondents have an alternate way to approach their land. The Tahsildar

as well as Sub Divisional Officer did not ascertain aforesaid position and

relying upon a false panchanama, order under Section 143 of MLR Code

has been passed. She would contend that, if new way is constructed as

per order passed by Tahsildar/Mamlatdar, petitioners dwelling hut and

mango trees on bandh would be destroyed. She would therefore urge to

direct the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of suit.



4.            Per contra, Mr. Ghatol Patil, learned Advocate appearing for

respondent nos.3 to 5 submits that, respondents did not have alternate

way to approach their land. The Tahsildar/Mamlatdar has considered

aforesaid exigencies, eventually passed an order under Section 143 of

MLR Code granting way.



5.           Having    considered    submissions     advanced      by   learned
                                    -3-
                                                           72-wp-3845-2025

Advocate appearing for respective parties and on perusal of reasons

recorded by Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court, it can be

observed   that   Tahsildar/Mamlatdar     while   exercising   jurisdiction

conferred under Section 143 of MLR Code recorded a finding that

respondents do not have alternate way to approach their land.          The

petitioner is obstructing only way that was available to respondents. The

findings recorded by Tahsildar/Mamlatdar prima facie appears based on

panchanama and statement of adjacent landowners.



6.          The Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court while dealing

with application for temporary injunction filed by petitioner in suit,

clearly observed that petitioner could not bring to notice of Court the

existence of any alternate way for respondents to approach their field. It

is further observed that respondents would suffer irreparable loss, if

injunction is granted. The balance of convenience is also found to be in

favour of respondents. Accordingly rejected application filed by petitioner

for temporary injunction.



7.          In light of aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court finds no

merit in writ petition. However, it needs to be observed here that, if

respondents proceed to construct way on basis of order passed by

Tahsildar/Mamlatdar, they shall not damage dwelling house of
                                    -4-
                                                            72-wp-3845-2025

petitioner, existence of which is noted in panchanama, nor they would

damage grown-up mango trees, if any, on the bandh. The execution of

order passed under Section 143 of MLR Code shall be subject to final

outcome of suit. The respondent nos.3 to 5 shall file undertaking before

Trial Court that in case suit is decreed, accepting case of petitioner, they

shall remove constructed way on their expenses.



8.           With these observations/directions, writ petition stands

dismissed.



                                           (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                    JUDGE




Tandale