Bombay High Court

APPA YEDU METE DIED THROUGH LRS RAICHAND APPA METE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR AHMEDNAGAR AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The orders under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act were valid and there was no jurisdictional error; the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners challenged orders passed under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, arguing that two panchanamas showing construction rendered the orders illegal. The trial court held that the construction of trees, houses, and cattle sheds adjacent to the customary way did not obstruct it, and that only the ploughing of the bund constituted obstruction, thus upholding the Tahsildar’s order. The District Judge affirmed the trial court’s decision, and the High Court found no jurisdictional error in those orders. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the pending civil suit.

Issues considered

Whether the orders under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act are illegal due to the existence of two panchanamas showing construction.
Whether the presence of trees, houses, and cattle sheds obstructs the customary way, thereby affecting the validity of the Tahsildar’s order.
Whether there is any jurisdictional error in the trial and appellate courts' decisions.

Legislation cited

Mamlatdar’s Courts Act — s. 23(2), 5

Subjects

Mamlatdar’s Courts Act
Section 5
Section 23(2)
customary way
temporary injunction
jurisdiction
writ petition
civil suit
land revenue

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:30320
903-wp-6143-2026.odt
(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 6143 OF 2026

Appa Yedu Mete Died Through Lrs Raichand Appa Mete And Ors
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Collector Ahmednagar And Ors
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Manjushri V. Narwade a/w Mr. V.P.
Narwade
AGP for Respondent/State : Mrs. P.V. Diggikar
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : JULY 22, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. Present writ petition takes exception to order dated

09.03.2026 passed by District Judge, Shrigonda in Misc. Civil Appeal

No.29 of 2025, thereby upholding order dated 01.09.2023 passed by

Civil Judge Senior Division, Shrigonga below Exhibit-5 in R.C.S.

No.175 of 2023.

2. The petitioners suffered order under Section 5 of

Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. Thereafter, petitioners filed revision

application before Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 23(2) of

Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected revision

application and confirmed order of Tahsildar. The petitioners

challenged said order before this Court in writ petition. This Court

rejected petitioners writ petition upholding orders passed by

Mamlatdar and Sub-Divisional Officer. Thereafter, petitioners

approached Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
903-wp-6143-2026.odt
(2)

confirmed order passed by this Court, however, granted liberty to

petitioners to file suit before Civil Court. Accordingly, petitioners filed

R.C.S. No.175 of 2023 before Civil Judge Senior Division at Shrigonda

along with application at Exhibit-5. The Trial Court after evaluation

of material tendered by plaintiffs, rejected application for temporary

injunction vide order dated 01.09.2023. The petitioners thereafter

filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.29 of 2025 before District Judge at

Shrigonda, who rejected appeal vide order dated 09.03.2026. Hence,

this writ petition.

3. Learned advocate appearing for petitioners strenuously

contends that orders passed under Mamlatdar’s Courts Act are exfacie

illegal as there are two panchnamas drawn by revenue authorities. In

first panchnama, customary way was shown, however, in subsequent

panchnama existence of construction of bricks and trees are noted. As

such, allegation that customary way was in existence could not have

been accepted.

4. In light of aforesaid submissions, this Court perused

reasoning adopted by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court while

dealing with petitioners application for temporary injunction. The

Trial Court observed that subsequent panchanama shows existence of

tree, houses and cattle shed and petitioners/plaintiffs have submitted

assessment extract of house property bearing No.474, 474/1, 474/2,

475 and 476. The tree, houses and cattle sheds are shown located
903-wp-6143-2026.odt
(3)

adjacent to customary way and not over bund through which

customary way proceeds. The Trial Court categorically observed that

customary way does not get obstructed by construction of houses and

cattle shed. The customary way has been obstructed due to

ploughing of bund. Therefore, presence of tree, houses and cattle

shed in land of plaintiffs would not render order passed by Tahsildar

ineffective or it cannot be said that proceeding initiated under Section

5 of Mamlatdar’s Courts Act was barred by law of limitation. The

aforesaid finding of Trial Court is reaffirmed by District Judge in his

order while rejecting petitioners appeal.

5. In aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court finds no

jurisdictional error in orders impugned. Writ Petition stands rejected.

6. In light of peculiar facts and circumstances of case,

learned advocate appearing for petitioner pursues this Court to

expedite hearing of suit. In light of submissions advanced, this Court

expect that Trial Court would endeavour to decide suit expeditiously.

7. Parties to co-operate.

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

Mujaheed//

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…