2-WP-5583-2016- Copy.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 03 WRIT PETITION NO. 5583 OF 2016 Dattatraya Rambhaji Raut VERSUS The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar and Ors. ….. Mr. Sanjay N. Gaikwad h/f Mr. N. V. Gaware, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. D. S. Jape, AGP for the Respondents - State ….. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 09.03.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2013 passed by the Tahsildar, Rahata in Rasta Case No. 36/2012, whereby the application filed by respondent no.4 under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Court Act, 1906 (for short ‘the said Act’) came to be allowed, which came to be confirmed by the order dated 06.05.2015 passed by the SDO, Shirdi in Revision No. 369/2013. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Gaikwad holding for Mr. Gaware for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4, who was Up-Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar, filed an application before the Tahsildar under Section 5(2) of the said Act. He submits that there was no customary road in existence and that under political pressure the Tahsildar passed the impugned order. He invited my attention to the panchanama, the letter issued by the Member of Parliament to the Tahsildar, and the 7/12 extracts. He further submits 1 2026:BHC-AUG:10155 2-WP-5583-2016- Copy.odt that the counsel for the petitioner was not present when the order was passed. He invited my attention to the Roznama, placed on record at Page Nos. 55 to 57 of the paper book, and contended that the matter was not decided on merits by the SDO. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the panchanama and roznama at Page No. 55 of the present petition, it appears that on 22.04.2014 the counsel for the petitioner was present and the matter was argued. Thereafter, till 06.05.2015, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents remained absent. Since the matter was already argued by the learned counsel, the learned SDO recorded that neither the petitioner nor the respondent were interested in pursuing the matter and rejected the revision. It appears that the order was passed long back and almost more than ten years have elapsed. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tahsildar, the respondents are using the said road and the position arising out of the order passed by the Tahsildar has already been settled. Therefore, I do not find any reason to unsettle the issue which has already been settled pursuant to the order passed by the Tahsildar. 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Sameer/March-2026 2