Bombay High Court
PRAVIN MADHUKAR JAGTAP AND ORSversusTHE TAHASILDAR WADGAON MAVAL AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the order is defective for lack of a proper petition and for not specifically referencing the petitioners' lands, and therefore remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar with directions to file a petition under Section 5.
Summary
The petitioners, owners of land parcels Gat No.28/1 and Gat No.30/1, challenged an order dated 31 October 2023 that directed matters concerning their lands. They alleged that the Gram Panchayat’s letters to the Tahsildar (June 27, 2022 and a withdrawal on July 14, 2022) did not mention their parcels and that no proper petition under Section 5 or Section 7 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, was filed, violating due process. The respondents (Gram Panchayat) contended that the petitioners themselves obstructed access to a crematorium and a dam by excavating and placing stones. The Court found that the lack of a proper petition and the omission of the specific land references rendered the impugned order defective. Accordingly, the Court interfered with the order to the extent it concerned the two parcels, remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar for proper consideration, and directed the Gram Panchayat to file a detailed petition under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. The petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 31 October 2023 is valid in view of the absence of a proper petition under Section 5 or Section 7 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906.
- Whether the Gram Panchayat’s letters sufficiently identified the land parcels (Gat No.28/1 and Gat No.30/1) to justify the order.
- Whether the petitioners were denied due process in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar.
Legislation cited
- Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 — s. 5, 7
Subjects
- Mamlatdar’s Courts Act
- Section 5
- Section 7
- due process
- Panchanama
- land access
- Gram Panchayat
- remand
- public road
Judgment
902-WP-6011-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6011 OF 2024
Pravin Madhukar Jagtap And Ors …Petitioners
Versus
The Tahasildar Wadgaon Maval And Ors …Respondents
Mr. Sachin S.Punde, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Parth Turakhia i/b AAK Legal for Respondent Nos.3 A to 3 D.
Smt. Savina R. Crasto AGP for State.
CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
DATE : MARCH 24, 2026
ORDER :
1. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated October 31,
2023, which, inter alia, issues directions in respect of the land belonging
to Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 (Gat No.28/1) and land belonging to
Petitioner No.3 (Gat No.30/1). The proceedings that culminated in the
Impugned Order were initiated by a letter dated June 27, 2022, issued
by the Gram Panchayat to the Tahsildar.
2. Thereafter, it appears that on July 14, 2022, a letter from the
Sarpanch appears to withdraw the request for intervention made by the
Page 1 of 4
MARCH 24, 2026
Rutuja
902-WP-6011-2024.doc
letter dated June 27, 2022. However, it appears that neither of these two
letters referred to Gat No.28/ 1 and Gat No.30/1.
3. The grievance of the Petitioners is that not only is due
process under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, in terms of a proper
Petition under Section 5 or the due process pursuant to an informal
Petition under Section 7, not been followed but also the very letters that
led to the process do not make any reference to their lands. The access in
question is available, according to the Petitioners, through public roads.
This is contested on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3A to 3D, which is a
Gram Panchayat and its office bearers. They contend that there had
been access to a crematorium and to a dam which was regularly being
used, but that access has been hindered by excavation with the
assistance of machines by the Petitioners and also by placing stones and
blocking access.
4. The Panchanama in question (found at page 51 of the
Petition), according to the Petitioners, does not point out that public
access is indeed available. These are questions of fact which need to be
dealt with squarely. This is where the absence of a proper Petition under
Section 5 or due process pursuant to an informal Petition under Section
7, and the absence of any reference to Gat No.28/1 and 30/1 in the
Page 2 of 4
MARCH 24, 2026
Rutuja
902-WP-6011-2024.doc
letters written by the Gram Panchayat to the Tahsildar, which
culminated in the Impugned Order, makes it necessary to intervene.
The intervention, in any case, being made in this order is restricted only
to the lands owned by the Petitioners, namely Gat No.28/1 and Gat
No.30/1.
5. It is considered appropriate to pass the following order:
A] The Impugned Order is interfered with only to the limited
extent of the reference it makes to Gat No.28/1 and 30/1,
by remanding the consideration of the issues relating to
these two parcels of land to the Mamlatdar for an
appropriate consideration.
B] The Gram Panchayat is given liberty to file a proper
Petition under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act,
1906, setting out in precise detail the factual matrix that
would fall for consideration in respect of relief sought
against the Petitioners.
C] Once such a Petition is filed by the Gram Panchayat, in
accordance with the due process stipulated under the
Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, the concerned authority
Page 3 of 4
MARCH 24, 2026
Rutuja
902-WP-6011-2024.doc
shall be at liberty to deal with the same, including the
making of a Panchanama with precise specificity, so that
the Petitioners would know the case that they have to meet
in this regard.
6. In view of the aforesaid directions, the Petition is finally
disposed of.
7. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be
taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s
website.
[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]
Page 4 of 4
MARCH 24, 2026
Rutuja
Checking your session…