Bombay High Court
Narayan S/O Deorao Sarode And Others vs Deputy Collector, Murtizapur, Akola ... on 16 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9237
44. 1027 of 2023.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1027/2023
Narayan s/o Deorao Sarode and others
...Versus...
Deputy Collector, Murtizapur, Barshitakli, District Akola and others
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Mr. A.M. Tirukh, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. S.B. Bissa, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr. P.S. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No.3
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 16/09/2025
1. The present petition takes an exception to the
concurrent orders dated 19/05/2022, passed by the learned
Mamlatdar, directing the petitioners to remove obstruction on
the suit road and 06/12/2022, passed by the learned Sub
Divisional Officer, rejecting the revision preferred by the
petitioners challenging the said order.
2. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has made
following three submissions in order to assail the said orders.
(i) The plaint is not filed in accordance with Section 7
since contents thereof are not supported by verification and/or
affirmation/affidavit.
(ii) The Mamlatdar has not visited the spot as
directed by the revisional authority in the earlier round of
litigation vide order dated 18/08/2021.
(iii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4, the original plaintiffs
have alternate way for approaching their land.
44. 1027 of 2023.odt
3. So far as the first contention is concerned, perusal
of the plaint indicates that the plaint discloses all the relevant
facts as are enumerated in Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 7 of the
Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906. The provision does not state
that the plaint should be supported by verification or
affirmation/affidavit. Section 9 of the Act provides that where
particulars specified in Section 7 are not mentioned in the
plaint, the Mamlatdar can examine the plaintiff on oath and
ascertain the particulars specified in Section 7 of the Act.
Section 10 states that then a plaint is dealt with in the manner
prescribed under Section 9, the Mamlatdar shall require the
plaintiff to subscribe and verify the plaint. Since necessary
ingredients of Section 7 are made out Section 9 is not
attracted. Since Section 9 is not attracted, the procedure
prescribed under Section 10 is also not required to be
followed. The judgment of this Court in the matter of
Gaurakshan Sansthan, Murtizapur Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others, reported in 2019 (3) ALL MR 849 relied upon by
the petitioners does help the petitioners, inasmuch as in the
said case it is observed that the plaint was not filed in
consonance with Section 7 of the Act and therefore, the
Mamlatdar was required to make compliance of Sections 9
and 10 of the Act before proceedings with merits of the matter.
With respect to the ratio of the said judgment will not apply in
the present case since the plaint is filed in accordance with
Section 7 of the Act. The first contention raised by the learned
Advocate for the petitioners is therefore rejected.
4. As regards the second contention that athe
Mamlatdar did not personally visit the spot for inspection,
44. 1027 of 2023.odt
perusal of letter dated 28/02/2023 issued by the Mamlatdar to
the plaintiff indicates that the Mamlatdar was personally
present during the course of spot inspection on 27/01/2022
along with Revenue Inspector and Talathi. The impugned
order passed by the learned Mamlatdar also records the fact
that he was personally present during the course of spot
inspection. In view of the above, second contention raised by
the learned Advocate for the petitioners is liable to be rejected.
5. As regards the third contention regarding
existence of alternate way, learned Advocate for the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 has rightly placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in the matter of Shrikrishna Sheshrao
Dane and another Vs. Vasant Ramrao Tayade and another,
reported in 2018 (2) Mh.L.J. 98, which holds that the
existence of alternate way is not a ground to assail the order
directing removal of obstruction on a way passed under
Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
Wadkar
Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/09/2025 10:10:09
