1 942-wp-5608-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5608 OF 2024 Vitthal s/o Rambhau Hapse Age: 57 years, Occu: Agri, R/o: Manori, Tq: Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar …..PETITIONER (Orig. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Sanjay s/o Rangnath jagdhane Age: 60 years Occu: Agri, R/o: Manori, Tq: Rahuri, Dist: Ahmednagar. 2. The Tahsildar, Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar 3. The Sub Divisional Engineer, Water Resources Sub Division, Khandala, Dist: Ahmednagar. …..RESPONDENTS (Resp.No.1 is Orig. Applicant) ______________________________________________________ Mr. H. D. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. V. S. Badakh, AGP for Respondents-State Mr. A. B. Jagtap, Advocate for Respondent no.1 ______________________________________________________ CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : 10TH JULY, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :- . The respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, praying that obstruction created by the petitioner to free flow of water from his field through the field of the petitioner should be 2025:BHC-AUG:18258 2 942-wp-5608-2024 ordered to be removed. 2. The learned Mamlatdar allowed the said application vide order dated 16.06.2022. The petitioner filed a revision before the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, which came to be dismissed on 29.08.2023. 3. The present petition is filed against the said concurrent orders. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is a bandh/dhura running in east-west direction separating the field of the petitioner bearing gut no.419 and field of the respondent no.1 bearing gut no.399. He states that there was a dispute with respect to this dhura between the parties. The petitioner filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.297 of 2002 against father of the respondent no.1. He contends that the said suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decreed dated 16.06.2022. The learned Court granted a decree for perpetual injunction thereby restraining father of the respondent from demolishing the common bandh in order to commit encroachment over the land owned by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends 3 942-wp-5608-2024 that the suit filed in the year 2002 establishes existence of bandh atleast from 29.10.2002 i.e. the date of filing of the suit. He therefore contents that the case setup by the respondent no.1 that flow of water was being stopped by the said bandh and that too within period of six months from the filing of the application before the Mamlatdar is inconceivable. He contends that both authorities have failed to take into consideration this vital aspect of the matter and therefore, both the orders are unsustainable and liable to be quashed. He further contends that the decree passed by the learned Civil Court will obviously prevail over the orders passed by the authorities under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act in view of Section 22 of the Act. 4. Per contra, the learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 justifies the orders to contend that the Mamlatdar has not ordered removal of the entire ‘bandh’. He contends that there is a culvert passing through the fields of respondent no.1 and the petitioner which has been blocked by the petitioner. This culvert is referred in the orders passed by the authorities as ‘Odha’. 4 942-wp-5608-2024 5. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar will demonstrate that the Mamlatdar has not ordered removal of the entire ‘bandh’. The learned Mamlatdar has merely directed removal of obstruction to the flow of water from the field of respondent no.1 bearing gut no.399 through the field of petitioner bearing gut no.419 and onwards which was obstructed by closing the canal. The learned Mamlatdar has merely ordered that the said obstruction in the flow of water should be removed. The learned Mamlatdar has also directed that the work should be done cautiously so as to avoid damage to the property of the petitioner. The learned Sub Divisional Officer has also appreciated the controversy in a proper perspective while maintaining the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar. 6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire bandh will be removed does not appear to be correct on reading of the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the Sub Divisional Officer. The Mamlatdar has merely ordered removal of obstruction over the canal. The Sub Divisional Officer has confirmed the said order. 5 942-wp-5608-2024 7. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in the present petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed with no orders as to cost. 8. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) Rushikesh/2025