Bombay High Court
Devidas Ganyba Suryavanshi vs Seetabai Venkatrao Baikare on 8 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:23856
1
1185.19WP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1185 OF 2019
Devidas Ganyba Suryavanshi
Age 62 years, Occu : Farmer,
R/o. Takli (B), Tq & Dist. Latur. .. PETITIONER
(Orig. Applicant)
VERSUS
1] Seetabai w/o. Venkatrao Baikare
Age : 55 years, Occu : Farmer & HH,
R/o Takli (B) Tq. & Dist. Latur.
2] Tahasildar Latur, Dist. Latur
3] Sub-Divisional Officer (Revisional) Authority
Latur Dist Latur.
.. RESPONDENTS
(Orig.Respondent)
...
Mr.A.G.Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.D.R.Karade, AGP for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
Mr.A.A.Joshi, Advocate holding for Mr.S.V.Natu, Advocate
for respondent no.1.
...
CORAM : ARUN R.PEDNEKER, J.
Reserved on : 25.08.2025
Pronounced on : 08.09.2025
ORDER :
1] By the present writ petition, the petitioner
challenges the judgment and order passed by the Sub
1185.19WP
Divisional Officer, Latur in File No. 2016/ROR/A-36 dated
30.07.2018 allowing the Revision Petition by setting aside
the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Latur, dated
30.05.2016. The revisional authority relied upon the report
dated 09.12.2014 submitted by the Circle Officer wherein it
is stated that the land of Devidas Gynaba Suryavanshi and
Sitabai Venkatrao Baikare is situated in Gat No.197 and
7/12 extract of the said Gat No.197 does not show any
vahiwat (paulwat). It is also stated in the said report that
Seetabai Baikare i.e. respondent no.1 had allowed usage of
road for some days to the petitioner. Thereafter, when she
realized that it was causing disturbed to her crops, she
stopped the vahiwat. It is observed in the impugned order
that from Takali to Bhoisamudraga, alternate road is in
existence in Gat No.198. It is observed that since there is no
road shown in the village map, claimed road is not a
customary road and the same is not allowed to be opened.
As such, the Revisional Authority set side the order of the
Tahsildar (Mamltadar).
1185.19WP
2] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that he is the owner of Gat No.197 to the extent of 2 H. 40
R. and there is public road adjacent to the said land. The
petitioner sold 1 H. 61 R. land to one Nandu Somwanshi by
a registered sale deed and that there was agreement
between purchaser of the land i.e. Mr.Nandu Somwanshi
and the petitioner. It is mentioned in the said agreement
that there is 8 feet road to approach the land of the present
petitioner on the boundary line on the land sold to Nandu
Somwanshi by south-north and by usage of the way the
petitioner approached to his field and Mr.Nandu
Somwanshi would not interfere in the said road. The said
Nandu Somwanshi again sold the land purchased by him to
the present respondent i.e. Seetabai by a registered sale
deed. Thereafter, the present respondent no.1 started
obstruction the usage of the road by digging pits and by
cultivating the land used for road and putting obstruction
on the road. As such, the petitioner filed an application
under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act before the
Tahsildar. On receipt of the said application, Circle
1185.19WP
Inspector conducted inspection and recorded the statement
of adjacent land owner and submitted a report in respect of
disputed land. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Latur personally
visited the spot for local inspection of the said land and
after hearing both sides, allowed the application on
30.05.2016. Thereafter, in the Revision filed by the
respondent, the Revisional Authority, by order dated
30.07.2018, set aside the order dated 30.05.2016 passed by
the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present
petition is filed by the petitioner.
3] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Tahsildar as well as Circle Officer had conducted
spot inspection and had found that there is a road in
existence and that usage was established by the affidavits of
adjacent land owners. As such, the Revisional Authority has
erred in interfering with the order of the Tahsildar, merely
by holding that such road is not seen in 7/12 extract, so
also, in the sale deed. As such, the order of revisional
authority is patently illegal and the same be quashed and
set aside.
1185.19WP
4] Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the revisional authority has rightly
appreciated that there is no long standing road in existence
and it is, therefore, not seen in the village map, nor in the
sale deed or in the 7/12 extract. The learned counsel
further submits that the order of the reivisional authority is
correct and should not be interfered with. He further points
out that there is order passed by the Civil Court in civil suit
filed by the petitioner against the present respondent and
the suit is filed for claiming damages for obstruction of the
same road. The learned counsel further submits that issue
no.1 formulated in Regular Civil Suit No.98/2014 is as
under :
v-dz- eqnns fu"d"kZ
ƒ oknh vls fl/n djrks dk; dh] R;kps o
izfroknh ;kaP;k 'ksrtehuhP;kiwoZ
cktwl udkjkFkhZ
mRrj&nf{k.k Š QwV :anhpk oknxzLr jLrk
vfLrokr vkgs?
The above mentioned issue is answered against
the present petitioner. There is no appeal preferred against
1185.19WP
the said judgment. The finding of the Civil Court would any
way override any orders passed before the Authority
constituted under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act.
5] Considered the submissions of the parties. The
Civil Court in Civil Suit No.98/2014 has passed judgment
and the issue in respect of existence of road is answered in
negative.
6] Section 26 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, which
provides as under :
26. Bar of certain suits :
No suit shall lie under this Act,
(a) ....
(b) in respect of [any removal of any impediment or
of] any dispossession, recovery of possession or
disturbance of possession, that has been the subject of
previous proceedings, to which the plaintiff or his
predecessor in interest was a party, under this Act, or in a
Civil Court or under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898.
Section 26 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act,
provides that no suit shall lie under the Mamlatdars' Courts
1185.19WP
Act, when the subject of disturbance of possession has been
the subject of previous proceeding instituted in a Civil
Court. The exercise of jurisdiction under the Mamlatdars'
Courts Act, by the Mamlatdar in such a situation is barred.
Perusal of Section 26 (b) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act
would indicate that in respect of any dispossession, recovery
of possession or disturbance of possession, that has been the
subject of previous proceedings, to which the plaintiff or his
predecessor in interest was a party, the proceedings before
the Mamlatdar Court are also barred.
7] Considering the above, the order of the
revisional authority dismissing the revision is not interfered
with. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. All orders
passed by the authorities constituted under the Mamlatdars'
Courts Act are subject to the order of the Civil Court in
terms of Section 22 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. As such,
liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek such legal
remedy by instituting civil suit for declaration and
injunction if available in law and if not barred by principles
1185.19WP
of res-judicata. If such a suit is filed, the trial court would
decide the same in accordance with law.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER]
JUDGE
DDC
