Bombay High Court

DATTATRAYA RAMBHAJI RAUTversusTHE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The petition cannot be entertained and the order of the Tahsildar stands, as the matter is settled and an inordinate delay precludes disturbing the status quo.

Summary

The petitioner, Dattatraya R. Raut, challenged an order dated 30 January 2013 issued by the Tahsildar, Rahata, which allowed an application filed by the respondent (Up‑Sarpanch of Bhagwatipur) under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Court Act, 1906, and was later confirmed by the SDO, Shirdi on 6 May 2015. The petitioner alleged that no customary road existed, that the Tahsildar acted under political pressure, and that the petitioner’s counsel was not present when the order was passed. The court examined the record, noting that the petitioner’s counsel had appeared on 22 April 2014 and the matter was argued, after which both parties remained absent, leading the SDO to reject the revision on the ground of lack of interest. The court observed that more than ten years had elapsed since the original order, the road was being used by the respondents, and the issue had effectively been settled. Consequently, the court found no reason to disturb the settled order and dismissed the writ petition without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the order of the Tahsildar under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Court Act, 1906, can be set aside on the ground that no customary road existed and the order was passed under political pressure.
Whether the revision before the SDO can be entertained after a prolonged lapse of time and after the parties’ absence from further proceedings.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the matter has been settled and more than ten years have passed since the original order.

Legislation cited

Mamlatdars’ Court Act, 1906 — s. 5(2)

Subjects

writ petition
Section 5(2)
Mamlatdars’ Court Act
Tahsildar order
revision
settled dispute
lapse of time
customary road

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:10155
                                                                 2-WP-5583-2016- Copy.odt

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          03 WRIT PETITION NO. 5583 OF 2016

                                Dattatraya Rambhaji Raut
                                         VERSUS
                      The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar and Ors.

                                            …..
          Mr. Sanjay N. Gaikwad h/f Mr. N. V. Gaware, Advocate for the
          petitioner
          Mrs. D. S. Jape, AGP for the Respondents - State
                                            …..
                                       CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE       : 09.03.2026
          PER COURT :

          1.    Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

          2.    The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2013 passed
          by the Tahsildar, Rahata in Rasta Case No. 36/2012, whereby the
          application filed by respondent no.4 under Section 5(2) of the
          Mamlatdars’ Court Act, 1906 (for short ‘the said Act’) came to be
          allowed, which came to be confirmed by the order dated 06.05.2015
          passed by the SDO, Shirdi in Revision No. 369/2013.


          3.    The learned counsel Mr. Gaikwad holding for Mr. Gaware for the
          petitioner submits that respondent No.4, who was Up-Sarpanch of
          Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar, filed an
          application before the Tahsildar under Section 5(2) of the said Act. He
          submits that there was no customary road in existence and that under
          political pressure the Tahsildar passed the impugned order. He invited
          my attention to the panchanama, the letter issued by the Member of
          Parliament to the Tahsildar, and the 7/12 extracts. He further submits
                                              1
                                                           2-WP-5583-2016- Copy.odt

that the counsel for the petitioner was not present when the order was
passed. He invited my attention to the Roznama, placed on record at
Page Nos. 55 to 57 of the paper book, and contended that the matter
was not decided on merits by the SDO.


4.      After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon
perusal of the panchanama and roznama at Page No. 55 of the present
petition, it appears that on 22.04.2014 the counsel for the petitioner
was present and the matter was argued. Thereafter, till 06.05.2015,
the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents
remained absent. Since the matter was already argued by the learned
counsel, the learned SDO recorded that neither the petitioner nor the
respondent were interested in pursuing the matter and rejected the
revision. It appears that the order was passed long back and almost
more than ten years have elapsed. Pursuant to the order passed by the
Tahsildar, the respondents are using the said road and the position
arising out of the order passed by the Tahsildar has already been
settled. Therefore, I do not find any reason to unsettle the issue which
has already been settled pursuant to the order passed by the Tahsildar.


5.      Hence, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.




                                       [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]




Sameer/March-2026




                                      2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…