Bombay High Court
Sanjay Suryabhan Abhale And Others vs Ramkrushna Kachru Abhale And Others on 27 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:4109
Dilwale 1 85-WP- 2462-2021 CONNECTED.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
85 WRIT PETITION NO. 2462 OF 2021
Sanjay Suryabhan Abhale And Others
VERSUS
Ramkrushna Kachru Abhale And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. R. R. Karpe with Mr. Shubham S.
Pawar
AGP for Respondents: Mr. B. A. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. V H Dighe with Mr. Ajit B. Kale
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 27.01.2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. By the present petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Tahsildar, Kopargaon in Rasta Case No.1/2019, whereby the application filed by respondent no.1 under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 came to be allowed and the same was confirmed by order dated 31.12.2020 passed by SDO, Shirdi.
3. Upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar and the panchanama placed at page 24, it reflects that the panchanama was drawn on 03.03.2019. However, the record reveals that the application giving rise to the said proceedings was filed by the respondents on 26.03.2019. Prima facie, therefore, it appears that the panchanama precedes the filing of the application, which creates a serious doubt regarding the correctness of the proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there were two proceedings instituted in respect of the same subject matter, and therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that due to pendency of Rasta Case No. 2 of 2019, such a date came to be erroneously recorded.
Dilwale 2 85-WP- 2462-2021 CONNECTED.odt
5. The Tahsildar, Kopargaon in Rasta Case No.1/2019, whereby the application filed by respondent no.1 under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 came to be allowed and the same was confirmed by order dated 31.12.2020 passed by SDO, Shirdi.
6. When the application was filed on 26.03.2019, there could not be any panchanama prior thereto. On this ground alone, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned order by setting aside the orders passed by Tahsildar, Kopargoan and SDO, Shirdi thereby remanding the matter to the Tahsildar, Kopargoan to decide it afresh.
7. It was pointed out that Rasta Case No. 2 of 2019 is also pending in respect of same subject matter. Therefore, both the proceedings are directed to be decided simultaneously by the Tahsildar, Kopargaon after hearing all the parties concerned.
8. The parties are directed to appear before the Tahsildar, Kopargaon on 09.02.2026. After appearance of the parties, the Tahsildar to conduct the panchanama in the presence of the petitioners and after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned, pass orders in accordance with law.
9. Till the Tahsildar decides those matters, the petitioners are restrained from causing any obstruction to the respondents which has reflected in paragraph 8 of affidavit in reply of respondent no.1 which is at page no.96 of the present petition and which reads as follows:-
8. I say and submit that, inspite of the fact that, the impugned orders are implemented and the road was open and obstructions were removed in the presence of the Revenue Officers, again due to the conduct and obstruction of the petitioners, this respondent is constrained to submit application dated 16.01.2025, 16.04.2025 and 02.06.2025 to the Tahsildar regarding the obstructions made by the present petitioners and this respondent has requested to take necessary action and for carrying out Panchanama regarding the standing of sugarcane in the suit field.
Dilwale 3 85-WP- 2462-2021 CONNECTED.odt
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Karpe, undertakes to this Court that till the matter is decided afresh, the petitioners will not cause any obstruction to the respondents.
11. If such obstruction is noticed, the same will entail taking necessary action by the Revenue Officer against the petitioners.
12. The petitioners to file undertaking before this Court within a period of one week from today. The Tahsildar to decide the proceedings after hearing the parties within a period of four months thereafter.
13. In view thereof, the writ petition is partly allowed. The matter is remanded to the Tahsildar, Kopargaon to decide afresh. The order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Tahsildar, Kopargaon in Rasta Case No.1/2019 and the order dated 31.12.2020 passed by SDO, Shirdi are quashed and set aside.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE