GANPAT RAOJI SALVE AND OTHERSversusDHANAJI BHAVANI SALVE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:24177
                                                          1               985-WP-6981-18.odt




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               985 WRIT PETITION NO. 6981 OF 2018

                                   Ganpat Raoji Salve And Others
                                               VERSUS
                                 Dhanaji Bhavani Salve And Others
                                                  ...
             Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Venjane Tukaram M.
             AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. S. D. Ghayal
             Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 7 : Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Senior
             Advocate with Adv. Ashwini Deshmukh i/by Adv. Devang Deshmukh
                                                  ...

                                    CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                    DATE          : 17.06.2026

             PER COURT :
             1.      Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

             2.      By this petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated

             31.05.2018 passed by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad and the order

             dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Tahsildar, Sillod, whereby the application

             filed by respondent Nos.1 to 7 under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’

             Courts Act, 1906 came to be allowed.

             3.      Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.1

             to 7 intended to construct an incomplete road. Inviting my attention to

             the application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 7, he submits that it is not

             the case of respondent Nos.1 to 7 that there existed a customary way

             which was subsequently obstructed. On the contrary, the old way was

             already available and was being used by the villagers and agriculturists.
                                           2                  985-WP-6981-18.odt


He submits that the application was filed only for completion of a new

road, as a part of the road had already been constructed under the

Employment Guarantee Scheme. According to him, the remaining portion

of the road could not be constructed and, therefore, the application came

to be filed. He submits that the petitioners have no objection to

construction of a road provided the same is undertaken by following due

process of law. He, therefore, contends that the application filed under

the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act itself was not maintainable.

4.    Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel,

supports the impugned orders by contending that the petitioners and

other villagers had initially granted no objection for construction of the

road under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. Pursuant thereto, a

portion of the road was constructed. However, when the remaining part

of the road was to be completed, the petitioners raised objections. He

submits that, therefore, the authorities have rightly allowed the

application.

5.    Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I have

gone through the copy of the application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 7.

In the application itself, respondent Nos.1 to 7 have specifically stated

that a part of the road was constructed pursuant to the no-objection

granted by the villagers. It is further stated that after construction of a

portion of the road, the petitioners obstructed the completion of the

remaining part.
                                              3                985-WP-6981-18.odt




6.      Thus, from the averments made in the application itself, it is

evident that the proceedings were initiated for completion of the

remaining portion of a road which was yet to be constructed. The case

does not relate to removal of obstruction from an existing customary way.

In view thereof, I find that the proceedings under the Mamlatdars’ Courts

Act were not maintainable. The authorities below, therefore, committed

an error in entertaining and deciding the application under the provisions

of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906. Considering the aforesaid facts, I

am inclined to allow the petition.

7.      Hence, the following order:

                                    ORDER

(i)     The petition is allowed.

(ii)    The order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the Additional Collector,

        Aurangabad and the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the

        Tahsildar, Sillod are hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii)   Liberty is granted to respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to initiate appropriate

        proceedings, including proceedings under Section 143 of the

        Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before appropriate

        authority, for construction of the road.


                                           [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                     JUDGE