High Court
Legal Reasoning
WP 10026/171IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD945 WRIT PETITION NO. 10026 OF 2017VITTHAL GOPALRAO MUNDEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS...Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. D.J. ChoudharyAGP for Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. P.D. PatilAdvocate for Respondent 5 : Ms. Madhu More h/f. Mr. S.T. Veer…CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.Dated:September 03, 2025PER COURT :-1.Heard.2.The application is filed by the present petitioner before the Tahsildar/Mamlatdar under section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act stating thereinthat there is common pathway between the fields of the petitioner and therespondent No. 5 going from Pradhansangwi to Bandi village. It is the caseof the petitioner that there is passage between the aforesaid lands andthe petitioner had been accessing through road/passage for long period oftime. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 obstructed thesaid road going from Pradhansangwi to Bandi village. On such applicationbeing filed, panchanama was conducted and accordingly the order undersection 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act was passed, directing therespondent No. 5 to open the road and to remove the obstruction.3.The said proceedings were challenged in appeal under theMaharashtra Land Revenue Code before Sub Divisional Officer in whichSub Divisional Officer has observed that under the provisions ofMaharashtra Land Revenue Code, the appeal is not maintainable and that
Legal Reasoning
WP 10026/172only revision petition under Mamlatdars’ Courts Act would be maintainable.The order of S.D.O. was taken further in appeal before the AdditionalCollector wherein he has remanded the matter back for reconsideration tothe Tahsildar.4.After remand, another panchanama was conducted on 31.1.2016and statements of some persons were recorded by theTahsildar/Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act and thereafter, theTahsildar passed order on 28.10.2016 holding that there was road inexistence from Pradhansawangi to Bandi village and the respondent shallnot obstruct the road and directions were issued to respondent No. 5 toopen the road and to remove the obstruction. The said order of Tahsildarwas challenged before the Additional Collector/revisional authority. Therevisional authority by the impugned order has observed at para No. 3 thatthere is some doubt as regards existence of the road and there aremultiple maps of the place available and the maps would not indicate theexistence of road. The revisional authority has further observed that it isnot certain whether only one road is left to reach the field of the petitioner.Thereafter, the revisional authority has directed that from commonembankment between the land of the petitioner and respondent No. 5,new road can be made reach the filed of the petitioner and as such,grievance of the petitioner would be redressed in the matter.5.Mr. D.J. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatmaterial on record particularly the panchanama and statements of thepersons recorded while conducting panchanama by the Tahsildar wouldindicate the existence of road and that there is obstruction created byrespondent No. 5. The learned counsel submits that although there is WP 10026/173overwhelming evidence to show the existence of road, the revisionalauthority has wrongly held that there is no road in existence and further inexercise of the the powers conferred under MLRC directed to open theroad. The learned counsel particularly relies upon para 6 of the judgmentof this court passed in Writ Petition No. 13351/2022 dated 4.7.2024 in thecase of Prabhakar s/o. Bankatrao Mokase (Jahagirdar) and Anr. Vs. TheState of Maharashtra. The said para is as under :-“6.Although, entire proceeding was moved under theAct of 1906, the learned Tahsildar appears to have passedan order invoking provisions under Section 143 of theMLRC, 1966 and granted new cart road in favour ofrespondent no.5. Apparently, the learned Tahsildar haswrongly exercised jurisdiction under Section 143 of theMLRC, 1966, when proceeding before him was institutedunder the Act of 1906. The provisions under Section 143 ofthe MLRC, 1966 operate in independent sphere and takescare of a different situation than as contemplated underSection 5 of the Act of 1906. In the present case,respondent no.5 specifically pleaded existence of customaryway and alleged obstructions at the hands of thepetitioners. In that view of the matter, there was no reasonfor Tahsildar to invoke his jurisdiction under Section 143 ofthe MLRC, 1966 and grant new cart road in favour ofrespondent no.5. Unfortunately, the challenge to this orderwas not entertained in Revision.”6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that assessment ofthe evidence by the revisional authority is perverse and accordingly, heprays for setting aside the impugned order passed by the revisionalauthority. In alternate, the learned counsel prays that matter be remandedback to the concerned authority on the ground that evidence on record is WP 10026/174not properly appreciated.7.Per contra, Ms. Madhu More holding for Mr. S.T. Veer, learnedcounsel for respondent No. 5 submits that there is no evidence to indicatethat there is existence of road between the field of the petitioner andrespondent No. 5. The learned counsel submits that the order passed bythe Mamlatdar under section 5 is erroneous and the revisional authorityhas rightly held that there is no road in existence. The learned counselsubmits that the proceedings were initiated by the petitioner under section143 of MLRC and not under section 5 of Mamlatdars’ Courts Act and theproceedings are converted into appeal. The learned counsel submits thatreasonable order is passed by the revisional authority and has exercisedthe equitable jurisdiction vested in it and prays for dismissal of the writpetition.8.Having considered the rival submissions, it is to be seen that there ismaterial available in respect of enquiry conducted. Spot inspection hasbeen conducted and panchanama has been drawn. Statements of variouspersons have been recorded and finding is given by the Mamlatdar thatthere is existence of road. However, while reversing the findings therevisional authority ought to have discussed the evidence on record.However, the revisional authority has not discussed the evidence on recordand held that there is no map indicating existence of road and hasdiscarded the evidence on merits. Further, the revisional authority hasexercised powers under MLRC to give direction to open the road from theboundary of the fields of petitioner and the respondent and the samecreates prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitionerhas pointed out that there is evidence indicating that the road was in
Decision
WP 10026/175existence and that the evidence ought to have been discussed by therevisional authority while holding that there is road or there is no road.Considering this aspect of the matter and considering that the AdditionalCollector has exercised the powers under MLRC, I deem it appropriate toquash and set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter back tothe revisional authority for reconsideration.9.With the above observations, the impugned order passed by thelearned Additional Collector is quashed and set aside and the matter isremanded back to the Additional Collector to decide the revision afresh inaccordance with law within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of this order. The parties to appear before Additional Collector on15.9.2025 so as to enable to Additional Collector to give further date in thematter.10.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )ssc/