MUNNA SIDA PADALKAR & Ors. v. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, the present petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906 s. 5(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Tauseef (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Judgment
By the present petition, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2018, passed by the learned Tahsildar or Mamlatdar, Muktainagar, in Case No.Vahivat/09/2017 and order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusaval Division, Bhusaval in Case No.Vahivat/Revision/65/2018, thereby confirming the order dated 07.09.2018 passed by Tahsildar, Muktainagar in Vahivat Case No.9/2017.
Mr. P. B. Waghmare, learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the learned Tahsildar without considering the village map, allowed the application filed by Respondent No.3 under section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906. He also submits that the 2 of 3 17-WP.248.2021 panchanama which was prepared by the Tahsildar is contrary to the village map. He invited my attention to the village map by submitting that Respondent No.3 is having an alternate road and further he submits that the panchanama does not specifically state whether there was a customary pathway/cartway in existence. He also invited my attention to the panchanama and submitted that as there was no customary road on the village map, Tahsildar ought not to have allowed the application filed by Respondent No.3. He further submits that in a revision before SDO all these grounds were raised but the SDO has not considered the same. Therefore, he prays to allow the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar.
Per contra, Mr. G. S. Dahale and Mr. D. R. Ghonge, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 and Mr. B. A. Shinde, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State support the order passed by the Tahsildar and SDO.
Having gone through the record which is placed with the petition with the assistance of learned Advocates for the respective parties. I have gone through the order passed by the Tahsildar and SDO, more particularly, the village map as well as the panchnama. After going through the village map, which is at page 37 and spot inspection report at page No.48, it reveals that there was a cartway 3 of 3 17-WP.248.2021 starting from northern side of Satod Ruikheda Road towards the field of Ashok Kotecha and then Sanju Padalkar. The said road goes to the field of Balu Bathu, Pundlik Sida, Munna Sida, Tanhu Sida and Sahebrao Omkar. The said cartway is blocked by ploughing. Therefore, as per the spot panchanama, which was conducted in presence of the parties and after hearing all the concerned, the Tahsildar passed an order dated 17.09.2018 by observing that, there was no any further road to reach the land of Respondent No.3. Only because there was no reference of availability of cartway on the village map, the said cannot be a ground to disbelieve the panchanama and to set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and SDO.
In view of that, I do not find any perversity in the order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Tahsildar, Muktainagar and order dated 11.11.2019 passed by learned SDO, Bhusawal.
Operative part
Hence, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Tauseef
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the present petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906 — s. 5(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 04 Mar 2026. The bench was SIDDHESHWAR S THOMBRE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.