1 1-wp-1986-2017.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1986 OF 2017 Baswant Manohar Shinde And Others VERSUS The Tehsildar Tehsil Office Latur And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Kasliwal Anil H. AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.B. Bhange Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 to 9 : Mr. B.N. Patil Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Ms. G.N. Chincholkar ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2026 P.C.: 1. Present petition is filed in order to assail the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in Regular Civil Suit No.538 of 2012. The said suit was instituted by present petitioners in order to assail the order dated 22.08.2011 passed by the Tahsildar in Case No.2010/Jama/Kavi/62 under Section 143 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (‘MLR Code’ for short). Section 143 of MLR Code reads as under : “143. Right of way over boundaries. (1) The Tahsildar may inquire into and decide claims by persons holding land in a survey number to a right of way over the boundaries of other survey numbers. (2) In deciding such claims, the Tahsildar shall have regard to the needs of cultivators for reasonable access to their field. (3) The Tahsildar's decision under this Section shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5), be subject to appeal 2026:BHC-AUG:39640 2 1-wp-1986-2017.odt and revision in accordance with the provisions of this Code. (4) Any person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Tahsildar under this Section may, within a period of one year from the date of such decision, institute a civil suit to have it set aside or modified. (5) Where a civil suit has been instituted under sub-section (4) against the Tahsildar's decision, such decision shall not be subject to appeal or revision.” 2. Perusal of the provision will indicate that the Tahsildar is empowered under Section 143(1) of MLR Code to decide claims by persons holding land in a survey number to a right of way over the boundaries of other survey numbers. Perusal of Section 143(3) will indicate that the decision by the Tahsildar is made subject to appeal or revision as provided under MLR Code. However, apart from the said remedies, Section 143(4) also provides that the decision by the Tahsildar under Section 143(1) can be assailed in a civil suit. Section 143(5) then provides that where a civil suit has been instituted under sub-section (4) against the Tahsildar's decision, such decision shall not be subject to appeal or revision. The words “such decision” in Section 143(5) are relevant for consideration of the issue of maintainability of present petition. 3. Mr. Kasliwal, learned advocate for petitioners would contend that the decision of the Civil Court in a suit instituted under Section 143(4) of the MLR Code cannot be subjected to challenge 3 1-wp-1986-2017.odt either in appeal or revision in view of bar under Section 143(5) of the MLR Code and, therefore, the only remedy available to the petitioners is to challenge the decree passed under Section 143(4) by way of a petition before this Court. Learned advocate vehemently argues that the words “such decision” in Section 143(5) refer to the decision of the Civil Court in a suit instituted under Section 143 (4) of the MLR Code. 4. Perusal of the scheme of Section 143 will indicate that the decision of Tahsildar with respect to right of way under Section 143(1) can be challenged in two separate channel. The first channel provides for preferring the appeals or revisions as provided under the MLR Code. Section 247 of the MLR Code speaks about two appeals. Section 257 of MLR Code provides remedy of revisions. As noticed above, apart from availing remedy of appeal or revision, the decision of Tahsildar under Section 143(1) can also be assailed in a civil suit. The civil suit as is well known, if adjudicated on merit culminates into a decree. The legislature has designedly not used the word decree in Section 143(5). The provision uses the word decision as against a decree. Perusal of Section 143(3) and (4) will indicate that the order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 143(1) is referred as decision. The word “decision” used in Section 143(5) therefore means impugned decision by the Tahsildar and not decree by a Civil Court in a suit instituted under Section 143. Apart from this, the scheme of provision is that two 4 1-wp-1986-2017.odt separate channels of remedies are provided. The scheme of section is that, if the decision by the Tahsildar is assailed in a civil suit, then the person aggrieved by the order of Tahsildar cannot avail the remedy of appeal or revision as provided under Section 143(3). There is nothing in the provision to infer that the right to file appeal conferred by Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code is barred expressly. The remedy of appeal is also not barred by implication having regard to the scheme of provision which bars further appeals and revisions under the scheme of the MLR Code when decision of Tahsildar is challenged in a civil suit. In the considered opinion of this Court, the decree passed by the Civil Court under Section 143(4) will be subject to further appeals as provided under Civil Procedure Code. 5. For the reasons recorded above, Writ Petition is dismissed, reserving a liberty to the petitioners to assail the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.11.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in Regular Civil Suit No.538 of 2012 by filing substantive appeal as provided under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. 6. The period from the date of filing of present petition i.e. 07.02.2017 till date, shall be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation. 5 1-wp-1986-2017.odt 7. It appears that learned Trial Court had passed an order of status quo in the civil suit on 01.12.2016. The said order is continued by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2017. The order of status quo is operating for a period of 9 and ½ years. The same is extended by a further period of 30 days from today i.e. till 30.09.2026. 8. Present petition which is now dismissed in view of alternate remedy was filed in the year 2017 and remained pending for a period of around 9 and ½ years. Learned Appellate Court is therefore requested to make an endeavour to decide the appeal, if filed, at the earliest. [ROHIT W. JOSHI J.] Mujaheed//