1 985-WP-6981-18.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 985 WRIT PETITION NO. 6981 OF 2018 Ganpat Raoji Salve And Others VERSUS Dhanaji Bhavani Salve And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Venjane Tukaram M. AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. S. D. Ghayal Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 7 : Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate with Adv. Ashwini Deshmukh i/by Adv. Devang Deshmukh ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 17.06.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad and the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Tahsildar, Sillod, whereby the application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 7 under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 came to be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.1 to 7 intended to construct an incomplete road. Inviting my attention to the application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 7, he submits that it is not the case of respondent Nos.1 to 7 that there existed a customary way which was subsequently obstructed. On the contrary, the old way was already available and was being used by the villagers and agriculturists. 2026:BHC-AUG:24177 2 985-WP-6981-18.odt He submits that the application was filed only for completion of a new road, as a part of the road had already been constructed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. According to him, the remaining portion of the road could not be constructed and, therefore, the application came to be filed. He submits that the petitioners have no objection to construction of a road provided the same is undertaken by following due process of law. He, therefore, contends that the application filed under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act itself was not maintainable. 4. Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel, supports the impugned orders by contending that the petitioners and other villagers had initially granted no objection for construction of the road under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. Pursuant thereto, a portion of the road was constructed. However, when the remaining part of the road was to be completed, the petitioners raised objections. He submits that, therefore, the authorities have rightly allowed the application. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the copy of the application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 7. In the application itself, respondent Nos.1 to 7 have specifically stated that a part of the road was constructed pursuant to the no-objection granted by the villagers. It is further stated that after construction of a portion of the road, the petitioners obstructed the completion of the remaining part. 3 985-WP-6981-18.odt 6. Thus, from the averments made in the application itself, it is evident that the proceedings were initiated for completion of the remaining portion of a road which was yet to be constructed. The case does not relate to removal of obstruction from an existing customary way. In view thereof, I find that the proceedings under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act were not maintainable. The authorities below, therefore, committed an error in entertaining and deciding the application under the provisions of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to allow the petition. 7. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad and the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Tahsildar, Sillod are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Liberty is granted to respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to initiate appropriate proceedings, including proceedings under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before appropriate authority, for construction of the road. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE