Bombay High Court
Mohansingh S/O Panditsingh More And ... vs The Sub-Divisional, Officer, ... on 20 August, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8321
wp3241.2025.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3241 OF 2025
Mohansingh Panditsingh More and others ... Petitioners
Versus
The Sub Divisional Officer, Malkapur
and others ... Respondents
....
Mr. N.B.Kalwaghe, Advocate for petitioners.
Ms. Kavita H.Bhondge, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Dr. Renuka S.Sirpurkar, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4.
...
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2025.
FINAL ORDER :
1 Heard Mr. N.B.Kalwaghe, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Ms. Kavita H.Bhondge, learned AGP for the
respondent nos.1 and 2 and Dr. Renuka S.Sirpukar, learned
counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4.
2. The petitioners take exception to the order dated
18.06.2025 passed by the respondent no.1- Sub Divisional Officer,
Malkapur, thereby vacating the stay granted earlier and also
rejecting the application for interim stay to the order passed by
the Mamlatdar.
3. The respondent nos.3 and 4 had filed an application
dated 27.12.2024 under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act
against the petitioners seeking a right of way through the land
belonging to the petitioners. In this application, the respondents
also mentioned certain details about the requirement of way
through the land belonging to the petitioners and also mentioned
a list of witnesses to be examined in support of their case. On
17.01.2025, the petitioners appeared in the proceedings and filed
their reply and opposed the claim of the respondent nos.3 and 4.
On 04.04.2024 spot inspection was conducted by the Circle
Officer and thereafter on 16.04.2025 the respondent no.2
Mamlatdar passed order and allowed the application filed by the
respondent nos.3 and 4.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Mamlatdar, the
petitioners filed Revision Application before the respondent no.1
on 09.06.2025. The petitioners also filed a separate application
for grant of stay to the execution of order dated 16.04.2025 and
pointed out that the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar by
relying upon the spot inspection report, required to be stayed
during the pendency of the Revision Application. In view of the
contentions canvassed by the petitioners, the respondent no.1
passed an interim order and granted status quo to be maintained
by the parties. The respondent nos.3 and 4 thereafter appeared in
the proceedings and filed an application for vacation of the order
of status quo by contending that they had earlier filed a Caveat
and the order of status quo was granted by ignoring the Caveat
and, therefore, the order of status quo be vacated. This application
was filed on 18.06.2025 and on the same day, the respondent
no.1-Sub Divisional Officer passed the order by which the
application for stay came to be rejected. The petitioners have
challenged this order by way of instant writ petition.
5. Mr. Kalwaghe, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer is unreasoned and cryptic. He submitted that it was
demonstrated before the Sub Divisional Officer that the order
passed by the Mamlatdar based on the spot inspection report was
unsustainable and considering the vital aspects of the matter, the
order of status quo was granted, which was to operate during
pendency of the Revision Application. However, only because the
respondents appeared and insisted for vacation of status quo, the
Sub Divisional Officer straightway vacated the status quo. He,
therefore, submitted that since the Revision Application filed by
the petitioners raising several grounds is required to be considered
on merits, the vacation of status quo order was unwarranted. The
application filed by the respondents under Section 5 of the
Mamlatdar's Courts Act was required to be decided after affording
an opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioners, particularly
in view of the fact that the respondents had specifically mentioned
the names of the witnesses, who were to be examined. He also
submitted that the respondents had not placed any material to
establish that there existed any right of way from the land
belonging to the petitioner and the challenge to the impugned
order passed by the Mamlatdar was required to be decided on
merits. He, therefore, submitted that the order vacating the
status quo and rejecting the stay application is arbitrary and
unsustainable in law.
6. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the
judgments of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of
Sudhir Yashwant Dhangade Vs. Ankush Kashiram Bole and others
(Writ Petition No.5896 of 2018) decided on 3rd January, 2019 and
Bhaurao s/o Supda Namge Vs Mahesh s/o Padmakar Namge and
ors. (Writ Petition No.576/2023) decided on 14th October, 2024.
7. As against this, Dr. Renuka Sirpurkar, learned counsel
for the respondent nos.3 and 4, strongly opposed the writ petition.
She submitted that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any
illegality with the order passed by the Mamlatdar and the order of
status quo was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer only because
the Revision Application was filed. She submitted that the
Mamlatdar had passed the order by considering all the relevant
documents including the spot inspection report and no case was
made out by the petitioners seeking stay to the order passed by
the Mamlatdar. By adverting attention of this Court to various
provisions of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, particularly Sections 5,
7, 8 and 9 of the Act, she submitted that the proceedings before
the Mamlatdar are required to be decided in a summary manner
without adopting any hyper technical approach. She, therefore,
submitted that the order passed by the Mamlatdar required no
interference much less any kind of interim stay. She also
submitted that the applicants before the Mamlatdar are entitled to
prove their case on the strength of documents and if they desire,
by examining witnesses in support of their case. Therefore, non-
examination of any witnesses cannot be held to be fatal to their
case. She, therefore, strongly opposed the writ petition and
submitted that the stay application is rightly rejected by the
impugned order.
8. It is pertinent to note that the impugned order is an
order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer vacating the order of
status quo and rejecting the application for stay. The Sub
Divisional Officer had earlier passed the order of status quo, which
was to operate during the pendency of the Revision Application.
On the application filed by the respondents seeking vacation of
stay, the Sub Divisional Officer passed the impugned order on the
same day and rejected the interim application by only observing
that the oral arguments of the parties were heard and the order
passed by the Mamlatdar was considered. However, there are no
reasons mentioned in the impugned order necessitating vacation
of the interim order during the pendency of the Revision
Application.
9. It has to be seen that the proceedings initiated before
the Mamlatdar are required to be decided in accordance with the
provisions of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act. In view of the position
of law as laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the
matter of Sudhir Yashwant Dhangade (referred supra), it is clear
that the Act confers powers on Mamlatdar to record evidence. The
proceedings before the Mamlatdar are, therefore, required to be
decided on the basis of documentary evidence made available and
also evidence of parties, if the witnesses are examined. As such the
contentions of the petitioners that for arriving at any final
conclusions, the Mamlatdar was required to consider all the
aspects including the spot inspection report. As such, the
contentions raised by the petitioners in the Revision Application
are required to be decided on merits. In view of the grounds
raised by the petitioners before the Revisional Authority, it is
desirable that the parties be directed to maintain status quo which
was ordered by the Sub Divisional Officer. On consideration of all
these aspects, it is clear that the impugned order vacating the
order of status quo and rejecting the stay application is
unwarranted.
10. Having regard to the above mentioned factual and
legal aspects and particularly, considering the fact that the
Revision Application is pending before the Sub Divisional Officer,
it is in the interest of justice to direct the parties to maintain status
quo during the pendency of the Revision Application. The Sub
Divisional Officer is, therefore, directed to decide the Revision
Application within a period of one month from today by affording
an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is
accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(PRAFULLA S.KHUBALKAR, J.)
Mukund Ambulkar, SPS
Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/08/2025 20:31:16
