Dilwale 1 105-WP-2706-18.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 105 WRIT PETITION NO. 2706 OF 2018 Sarjerao Dagdu Gavhane And Others VERSUS Babasaheb Vitthal Gorde And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Patekar Narendra B AGP for Respondents: Mr. D. R. Korde Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Andhale Sandip R ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 18.03.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel respective parties. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Shevgaon, whereby application filed by respondent no. 1 to 6 under sec 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’s Courts Act, 1906 came to be rejected. The said order came to be confirmed by order dated 06.12.2017 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Pathardi. 3. Mr. Patekar, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the panchanama at page No. 27 and submitted that the spot clearly indicates the existence of a cartway between Gat No. 231 and Gat No. 318/1. He has also relied upon the village map at page No. 58, which, according to him, reflects that a road is available between the said Gat numbers. It is submitted that the Tahsildar has allowed the application 2026:BHC-AUG:11975 Dilwale 2 105-WP-2706-18.odt filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 by observing that a road exists, however, the said finding is recorded in a very cryptic manner without assigning any reasons. 4. Mr. Andhale, learned counsel for the respondents supports the orders passed by Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the Tahsildar has not recorded any cogent reasons while allowing the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6. The order passed by the Tahsildar is thus unsustainable, being devoid of proper reasoning. The Sub-Divisional Officer has also confirmed the said order without independently appreciating the material on record. Hence, I proceed to pass following order: ORDER (i) The petition is partly allowed. (ii) The order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Shevgaon and the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Pathardi are quashed and set aside. (iii) The matter is remanded to the Tahsildar, Shevgaon for fresh consideration. (iv) The Tahsildar shall issue notice to all concerned parties, grant them an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter decide the proceedings afresh in accordance with law. Dilwale 3 105-WP-2706-18.odt (v) All contentions of the parties are kept open. (vi) The Tahsildar shall decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE