Bombay High Court
Shri. Dadasaheb Ramchandra Fokane vs Shri. Santosh Shivaji Fokane And Ors on 23 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:40276
Salgaonkar 82 WP-5002-21.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MANDIRA MILIND MILIND SALGAONKAR
SALGAONKAR Date: 2025.09.24 18:07:04
+0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5002 OF 2021
Dadasaheb Ramchandra Fokane .....Petitioner
: Versus :
Santosh Shivaji Fokane & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr.Rameshwar N. Gite for the Petitioner.
Mr.B.B.Dahiphale, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.12/State.
Mr.Vikram A. Sathaye i/b Mr.Hrishikesh Shinde, for the Respondent
Nos.13 to 17.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 23 SEPTEMBER 2025.
P.C :
1) The Petition challenges the Judgment and Order dated 01/01/2021
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (for short, "S.D.O."), Igatpuri-
Trimbakeshwar Sub-Division Nashik, allowing the Revision Application
filed by the contesting Respondents under provisions of Section 23(2) of
the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 and setting aside the order dated
11/06/2018 passed by the Tahsildar, Igatpuri.
2) I have heard Mr.Gite, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr.Vikram Sathaye, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.13 to
17. I have gone through the findings recorded by Tahsildar and S.D.O. in
their respective orders. I have also perused the records of the case filed
alongwith the Petition.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 23 September 2025
Salgaonkar 82 WP-5002-21.docx
3) The Tahsildar had allowed the claim of the Petitioners vide order
dated 18/06/2018 by relying upon spot inspection dated 11/08/2017,
which depicted existence of road passing through Gat No.131 and 132,
which was found to be obstructed. However, it appears that a contention
was raised on behalf of the contesting Respondents that the Petitioners
have alternate approach road for approaching their land. This contention
was apparently not decided by Tahsildar.
4) In Revision, S.D.O. adopted a hyper technical approach and held
that the Petitioner did not disclose the date of accrual of cause of action,
on account of which, the Petitioners' claim could not be treated to be
within limitation. The S.D.O. further held that the Tahsildar failed to
record evidence of parties on affidavits. Lastly, it is held by S.D.O. that
the approach road usually exists at bandhs and that Tahsildar failed to
consider and decide the contention of the contesting Respondents about
the existence of alternate approach road.
5) In my view, S.D.O. has grossly erred in setting aside the order of
Tahsildar on the ground of failure to disclose cause of action. True it is
that a plaint under Section 5 of the Act needs to be presented within a
period of six months from the date of accrual of first cause of action. At
the same time, provisions of Section 8 of the Act mandate that even a
informal application can be entertained by Tahsildar and after explaining
the statutory scheme of Section 5, if the applicant discloses desire to pursue
remedy under Section 5, such informal application can be converted into
plaint, by making an endorsement thereon. Considering the scheme of the
Mamlatdar Courts Act, which seeks to provide speedy remedy to
Agriculturists, who may not often be very educated persons, strict
compliance with requirements of pleadings need not be insisted upon.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 23 September 2025
Salgaonkar 82 WP-5002-21.docx
6) However, at the same time, it is seen that the contention of the
contesting Respondents about existence of alternate approach road has not
been decided by Tahsildar. In that view of the matter, the correct course of
action would be to remand the proceedings to Tahsildar for fresh decision
of the case.
7) The Petition accordingly succeeds partly and I proceed to pass the
following order :-
i) The order dated 01/01/2021 passed by the S.D.O. as well as the
order dated 18/06/2018 passed by Tahsildar are set aside.
ii) Vahivaat Case No.16 of 2016 stands restored on the file of
Tahsildar, Igatpuri, who shall proceed to decide the same afresh on
its own merits.
iii) While deciding the case afresh, the Tahsildar shall also consider
and decide the plea raised by the Respondents about the existence
of alternate approach road.
iv) The parties shall appear before Tahsildar on 14/10/2025 and
secure further directions for fixation of date(s) of hearing.
v) The Tahsildar shall make an endeavor to decide the remanded
matter in an expeditious manner and preferably within six (6)
weeks from the date of first appearance of the parties.
vi) All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
8) With the above directions, the Petitions is partly allowed and
disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
_____________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 23 September 2025
