Bombay High Court
Shivaji Nivrutti Pawar vs Govind Shivram Algule And Others on 13 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:6717
1 of 4 25-WP.6993.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
25 WRIT PETITION NO. 6993 OF 2018
SHIVAJI NIVRUTTI PAWAR
VERSUS
GOVIND SHIVRAM ALGULE AND OTHERS
...
Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3-State.
Mr. Suhas P. Urgunde, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 13th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. By the present petition, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2017 passed by the learned Tahsildar, Ahmedpur in Case No. 2016/Jama/ROR/Tahsildar/CR/60 and the order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Ahmedpur in Case No. 2017/ROR/A/58, whereby the application filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed by the Tahsildar and the said order came to be confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
3. Mr. V. D. Gunale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that when the panchanama was recorded, it nowhere reflected that any road was in existence. As regards the digging of the road, the panchanama does not indicate that any road existed earlier. He further Tauseef 2 of 4 25-WP.6993.2018 submits that there was no obstruction at the hands of the Petitioner. It is contended that when the application was filed by Respondent No.1 before the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar himself did not inspect the spot. He submits that initially, in the year 2015, the Tahsildar had directed closure of the canal and diversion thereof by passing an order in favour of Respondent No.1. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner by filing a revision before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Sub- Divisional Officer set aside the said order. Thereafter, after two years, another application came to be filed. He points out that while allowing the revision, the Sub-Divisional Officer granted liberty to Respondent No.1 to file a fresh application.
4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner further submits that the road was not in existence at all and that even the earlier as well as subsequent panchanamas prepared during the course of litigation nowhere reflect existence of any road, nor do they indicate any obstruction at the hands of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Tahsildar allowed the application without verifying the actual position at the site.
5. He invited my attention to Sections 5 and 7 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 (for short, "the Act") and submits that as there was no obstruction and since the panchanama does not reflect existence of any road, the proceedings themselves were not Tauseef 3 of 4 25-WP.6993.2018 maintainable under the Act.
6. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner also submits that the authorities failed to consider the fact that one road was already in existence. He placed reliance on the village map and pointed out that Respondent No.1 has an alternate road and is using the same. Therefore, the Tahsildar ought not to have granted another road. He further submits that the learned Tahsildar failed to frame points for determination and conducted the proceedings contrary to Sections 5 and 7 of the Act.
7. Per contra, Mr. Suhas Urgunde, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr. A. D. Wange, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3-State supported the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer. They invited my attention to the record, particularly the panchanama.
8. Having heard the learned Advocates for both sides and upon perusal of the panchanama dated 01.06.2017, which forms part of the record, it is evident that the Revenue Officer recorded that the existing way was being destroyed by digging and that the Petitioner had constructed a canal over the said road. The said panchanama clearly reveals that there was obstruction at the hands of the Petitioner. The customary road which was in existence was dug by the Petitioner and the same was noticed by the Revenue Officer during the panchanama Tauseef 4 of 4 25-WP.6993.2018 dated 01.06.2017.
9. I have also gone through the registered sale deed of the year 1993, which forms part of the record, wherein reference to existence of a road is found. In view thereof, it is evident that the Tahsildar passed the order based on the panchanama dated 01.06.2017 and the registered sale deed of the year 1993. More particularly, even in the application filed by Respondent No.1, it was specifically stated that the road was in existence and was destroyed by digging carried out by the Petitioner. This clearly amounts to obstruction at the hands of the Petitioner. Therefore, upon consideration of the panchanama and the entire record, I find that the learned Tahsildar has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, nor has the learned Sub-Divisional Officer committed any error in confirming the same.
10. In view thereof, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 10.07.2017 and 05.03.2018 passed by both the authorities in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef