1 WP 9731-2017.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9731 OF 2017 PANDURANG BHAU MADANE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS … Mr. Sanjay N. Gaikwad h/f. Mr. N.V. Gaware – Advocate for Petitioners Mr. A.D. Wange – AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, State Mr. Rahul R. Karpe – Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 Mr. Rajendra S. Kasar – Advocate for Respondent Nos.9 and 10 … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 27.02.2026 O R D E R : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2017 passed by respondent No.1 – the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrigonda-Parner Sub-Division in Revision Application No.32 of 2017, thereby confirming the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by respondent No.2 – the Tahsildar in Vahivat Case No.54 of 2014. 3. Learned Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Gaikwad holding for Mr. Niteen Gaware, for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had filed an application before respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, Shrigonda-Parner under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 seeking injunction in 2026:BHC-AUG:9016 2 WP 9731-2017.odt respect of a customary road providing access to Gat No.84 belonging to the petitioners and others, from Dhumalewadi to Kashti village boundary road, which passes through Gat Nos.81, 82 and 83 and leads towards Gat No.84. It is further submitted that Dilip Anna Handal and Ashok Dilip Handal filed an application seeking to be added as a third party in the said proceedings, on which no order was passed. The petitioners thereafter filed an application seeking permission to withdraw the proceedings. According to the learned Counsel, once such an application for withdrawal was filed, the Tahsildar ought to have closed the proceedings. However, without deciding the withdrawal application, the Tahsildar proceeded to pass the order, which was subsequently confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. He further contended that the panchnama clearly records the existence of the road and, therefore, in view of the pending intervention application and the withdrawal application, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.P. and learned Counsel Mr. Rahul Karpe and Mr. Rajendra S. Kasar for the respective respondents support the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer. Learned Counsel, Mr. Rahul Karpe, for respondent Nos.5 and 6 further submits that pursuant to the order of the Tahsildar, the road has already been cleared and, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Upon perusal of the documents placed on record by the petitioners, 3 WP 9731-2017.odt the reply filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State authorities, and the panchnama, it reveals that the Tahsildar, Shrigonda-Parner, after considering the spot verification dated 25.06.2017, found that the road was open up to Gat No.84 owned by the petitioners and others and further up to Gat No.41. The panchnama indicates that the road was in existence and was an old one. Considering these aspects, the Tahsildar passed the order, which has been confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 6. In view of the above, I find that the Tahsildar has passed the order in accordance with law and in consonance with the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 12.06.2017 passed by respondent No.1 – Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrigonda-Parner Sub-Division, and the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by respondent No.2 – Tahsildar. 7. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE Pooja Kale/