Bombay High Court
BHAURAO APPARAO KOLHE AND OTHERSversusANANDRAO TUKARAM KOLHE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The orders of the Tehsildar and the Sub‑Divisional Officer were quashed because the Tehsildar did not conduct the mandatory site inspection and prepare a panchanama.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their appeal by the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) Hadgaon and the confirmation of the Tehsildar's order, alleging procedural irregularity. They argued that under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, the Tehsildar was required to conduct a site inspection and prepare a panchanama, which was not done. The Court examined the procedural requirement and found that the Tehsildar had indeed failed to prepare the panchanama. Consequently, the Court set aside both the Tehsildar’s and the SDO’s orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing a personal site visit and a reasoned order within four months. The petition was therefore partly allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tehsildar complied with the procedural requirement of preparing a panchanama under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Procedural lapse
- Mamlatdars’ Courts Act
- Panchanama
- Quashing order
- Remand
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23714
935-WP-7917-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
935 WRIT PETITION NO. 7917 OF 2016
Bhaurao Apparao Kolhe And Others
VERSUS
Anandrao Tukaram Kolhe And Others
...
Mr. Amit Mukhedkar a/w Amol A Kokad Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. R. B. Narwade Patil for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for State.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 12 JUNE 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. By the present Petition, the Petitioners are assailing the order dated 6 th
June 2016, passed by SDO Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded whereby the Appeal filed
by the Petitioners came to be dismissed and the order dated 15 th June 2015
passed by Tehsildar, Hadgaon came to be confirmed.
3. Mr. Mukhedkar, learned counsel for the Petitioners invited my
attention to the panchanama prepared by the Naib Tehsildar on 20 th
February 2015. In fact under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, it is the
Tehsildar who is competent to visit the site and prepare the report of
inspection.
4. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, only on the
ground that the Tehsildar has not carried out the panchanama, I am inclined
Shubham Page 1 of 2
935-WP-7917-2016.doc
to partly allow the present Petition thereby setting aside the order passed by
the Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer, Hadgaon and remanding the
matter to Tehsildar, Hadgaon.
5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The order
dated 6th June 2016, passed by SDO, Hadgaon and the order dated 15 th June
2015, passed by Tehsildar, Hadgaon are quashed and set aside. The matter is
remanded to Tehsildar, Hadgaon for fresh consideration with a direction that
Tehsildar shall visit the site personally and prepare the panchnama and after
giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties pass a reasoned order
within a period of four months from today.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…