BAPURAO RAMDAS CHAVAN AND ANRversusNAVNATH SHIVAJI CHAVAN AND ORS

                                                                      14-WP6585-2026.DOC

                                                                                 Santosh

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 6585 OF 2026

                      Bapurao Ramdas Chavan And Anr                        ...Petitioner
                                        Versus
                      Navnath Shivaji Chavan And Ors                   …Respondents
                                                 WITH
                                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7014 OF 2026

                      Mr. Nilesh Wable, i/b Sumit Khaire, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Jaydeep Deo, a/w Onkar Gawade, for Respondent Nos.1to4.
                      Smt. Savita Prabhune, AGP for the State.
SANTOSH
SUBHASH                                             CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
KULKARNI                                            DATED: 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.09.08
18:59:09 +0530        Order:-

                      1.   Heard Mr. Wable, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

                      Mr. Deo, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, and

                      Smt. Prabhune, the learned AGP for the State.


                      2.   This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

                      calls in question the legality, propriety, and correctness of the

                      judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2026 passed by the Sub-

                      Divisional Officer, Pune, whereby an order passed by the

                      Tahsildar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906

                      (‘the Act, 1906’) dated 26th April, 2026 was quashed and set

                      aside.


                                                    1/4
                                              14-WP6585-2026.DOC

3.   The petitioners preferred an application purpotedly under

Section 5 of the Act of 1906 asserting, inter alia, that on 5th

June, 2024, respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the holders of the land

bearing Gat No. 257 had put impediments in the road leading to

Gat No. 260, the petitioners land. The Tahsildar caused a site

inspection to be conducted. On the basis of the site inspection

report, as evidenced by the Panchanama, the Tahsildar passed

an order directing the private respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to remove

the impediment in the access to Gat No. 260 through Gat

No. 257.

4.   Being aggrieved, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 preferred a

revision before the Sub-Divisional Officer.

5.   By the impugned order, the Sub-Divisional Officer was

persuaded to interfere with the order passed by the Tahsildar,

primarily for the reason that by an order dated 27 th December,

2019 in Rasta Case No. 143/SR/26/2018, right of way was

granted by the Tahsildar over the east-west boundaries of

Survey Nos. 256, 287, 288, and 286, and thereafter over north-

south boundaries of Gat Nos. 286, 285, 299, 300, and 284.

Since the petitioners had a 10 feet wide road to approach their

land, granted under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land

Revenue Code, 1966 (‘MLRC’), there was no propriety in seeking

                               2/4
                                                14-WP6585-2026.DOC

right of way through Gat No. 257 belonging to respondent Nos.1

to 4.

6.      Mr. Wable, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, made

an endeavor to urge that the order dated 27th December, 2019 in

Rasta Case No. 143/SR/26/2018 had no relevance to the

determination of the controversy between the petitioners and

respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In fact, the petitioners and respondent

Nos. 1 to 4 herein were the applicants in the said application,

and at the instance of the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to

4, the order dated 27th December, 2019 was passed by the

Tahsildar against the respondents therein.

7.      The aforesaid submission does not merit countenance.

First and foremost, it is necessary to note, the order dated 27 th

December, 2019 makes it abundantly clear that the Tahsildar, in

exercise of the powers under Section 143 of the Code, had

granted 10 feet wide right of way to their fields to the holders of

the agricultural land bearing Gat Nos. 253, 254, 288, 287, 289,

256, and 260 over the east-west boundaries of lands bearing

Gat Nos. 256, 287, 288, and 286, and thereafter over the north-

south boundaries of the land Gat Nos. 286, 285, 299, 300, and

284. Secondly, the existence of the said road is reflected in the

map of the spot inspection annexed to the Panchanama. The

                               3/4
                                                   14-WP6585-2026.DOC

said road is shown in a dotted line from Gat No. 286 to Gat No.

260, albeit over the boundaries of the other Gat numbers. Thus,

the Sub-Divisional Officer was well within his rights in

observing that, despite the existence of the alternate way, which

has been granted pursuant to the order passed by the Tahsildar

under Section 143 of the MLRC, the petitioners had no reason to

seek right of way through the land of respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

8.    The view taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, borne out by

unimpeachable material, appears to be justifiable. Once the

existence of right of way over the boundaries of the survey

numbers,    granted   under   Section   143   of    the   MLRC,    is

demonstrated, the application for removal of alleged impediment

in the access through the land of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was

not tenable. Therefore, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction,

this Court does not find any justifiable reason to entertain the

petition.

9.    The petition stands dismissed.

10.   In view of dismissal of the petition, IA/7014/2026 also

stands disposed.


                                          [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                              4/4