PANDURANG BHAU MADANE AND OTHERSversusTHE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:9016
                                                  1                       WP 9731-2017.odt




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 9731 OF 2017

                           PANDURANG BHAU MADANE AND OTHERS
                                          VERSUS
                    THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS

                                                 …
             Mr. Sanjay N. Gaikwad h/f. Mr. N.V. Gaware – Advocate for Petitioners
             Mr. A.D. Wange – AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, State
             Mr. Rahul R. Karpe – Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6
             Mr. Rajendra S. Kasar – Advocate for Respondent Nos.9 and 10
                                                 …

                                   CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                   DATE          : 27.02.2026

             ORDER:
             1.     Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.


             2.     The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2017

             passed by respondent No.1 – the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrigonda-Parner

             Sub-Division in Revision Application No.32 of 2017, thereby confirming

             the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by respondent No.2 – the Tahsildar in

             Vahivat Case No.54 of 2014.


             3.     Learned Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Gaikwad holding for Mr. Niteen

             Gaware, for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had filed an

             application before respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, Shrigonda-Parner under

             Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 seeking injunction in
                                      2                           WP 9731-2017.odt


respect of a customary road providing access to Gat No.84 belonging to

the petitioners and others, from Dhumalewadi to Kashti village boundary

road, which passes through Gat Nos.81, 82 and 83 and leads towards Gat

No.84. It is further submitted that Dilip Anna Handal and Ashok Dilip

Handal filed an application seeking to be added as a third party in the

said proceedings, on which no order was passed. The petitioners

thereafter filed an application seeking permission to withdraw the

proceedings. According to the learned Counsel, once such an application

for withdrawal was filed, the Tahsildar ought to have closed the

proceedings. However, without deciding the withdrawal application, the

Tahsildar proceeded to pass the order, which was subsequently confirmed

by the Sub-Divisional Officer. He further contended that the panchnama

clearly records the existence of the road and, therefore, in view of the

pending intervention application and the withdrawal application, the

impugned orders deserve to be set aside.


4.    Per contra, learned A.G.P. and learned Counsel Mr. Rahul Karpe and

Mr. Rajendra S. Kasar for the respective respondents support the orders

passed by the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer. Learned Counsel,

Mr. Rahul Karpe, for respondent Nos.5 and 6 further submits that

pursuant to the order of the Tahsildar, the road has already been cleared

and, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.


5.    Upon perusal of the documents placed on record by the petitioners,
                                         3                         WP 9731-2017.odt


the reply filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State authorities, and the

panchnama, it reveals that the Tahsildar, Shrigonda-Parner, after

considering the spot verification dated 25.06.2017, found that the road

was open up to Gat No.84 owned by the petitioners and others and

further up to Gat No.41. The panchnama indicates that the road was in

existence and was an old one. Considering these aspects, the Tahsildar

passed the order, which has been confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.


6.       In view of the above, I find that the Tahsildar has passed the order

in accordance with law and in consonance with the Mamlatdars’ Courts

Act, 1906. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated

12.06.2017 passed by respondent No.1 – Sub-Divisional Officer,

Shrigonda-Parner Sub-Division, and the order dated 22.12.2016 passed

by respondent No.2 – Tahsildar.


7.       Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.


8.       There shall be no order as to costs.


9.       Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.



                                             [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                       JUDGE


Pooja Kale/