1 956-wp-7274-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7274 OF 2024 1. Mahadeo S/o Satyabhan Thoke Age: 53 years, Occ: Agriculure, R/o. Kolibodkha, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Padmabai W/o Sahebrao jaybhaye Age: 60 years, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o. Kekat Jalgaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad …..PETITIONERS (Orig. Resp.) VERSUS 1. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sub-Divisional Office paithan-Phulambri, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad 2. The Tahsildar, Paithan Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad 3. Tarabai Ramesh Magare, Age: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Kolibodkha, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad …..RESPONDENTS (Resp. No.3 is Orig. Applicant) ______________________________________________________ Mr. C. V. Bodkhe, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondents-State Mr. A. S. Shejwal, Advocate for Respondent no.3 ______________________________________________________ CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : 01ST JULY, 2025 2025:BHC-AUG:17484 2 956-wp-7274-2024 ORAL JUDGMENT:- . The present petition takes exception to concurrent orders dated 05.04.2023, passed by the learned Mamlatdar under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 as also the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, rejecting the revision preferred by the present petitioners under Section 23, sub Section 2 of the said Act. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention to the application filed by the respondent/original applicant before the learned Mamlatdar. The said application is filed on 14.03.2022. 3. Perusal of the application will demonstrate that the obstruction is from somewhere around the year 2012. Perusal of Section 5(3) will demonstrate that the limitation for filing suit before Mamlatdar is six months from the date of cause of action. Section 5(4) states that the cause of action arises on the date of which the obstruction is first created. In view of the clear mandate of the statute, it is obvious that the application filed by the respondent/original applicant was hopelessly barred by limitation. Both the authorities have 3 956-wp-7274-2024 failed to take into consideration this vital aspect of the matter. 4. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are clearly unsustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent/original applicant states that the proposed road passes through boundaries of adjoining agricultural lands i.e. through the Dhura/Bandh. He contends that the obstruction to a road gives rise to continuous cause of action. 6. This submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent is correct with respect to Civil Suits as has been held in the matter of Sankar Dastidar vs Shrimati Banjula Dastidar & Anr, reported in AIR 2007 SC 514, wherein it is held that where the person obstructing road has no right to possess the same, the cause of action is a continuing cause. However, having regard to the express provision of Section 5(3) and 5(4) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, the said contention cannot be accepted under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid legal position with 4 956-wp-7274-2024 respect to limitation, although the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed, in the considered opinion of this Court, liberty will have to be granted to the respondent/original applicant to ventilate their grievance before the Competent Civil Court agitating the cause of action with respect to the subject road, since the orders are quashed solely on ground of limitation. Needless to mention that order passed by Mamlatdar are subservient to adjudication of the suit by a Competent Civil Court. The orders impugned in the present petition as also the order passed in the present petition will therefore not operate as res-judicata in the event the respondent no.3/original applicant chooses to file a civil suit for ventilating her grievance with respect to the road in question. 8. Needless to mention that the order will also not be an impediment for the respondent/applicant in seeking appropriate order of temporary injunction in the proposed civil suit since section 22 of Mamlatdars’ Courts Act grants primacy to decree as well as order passed by a Civil Court over order passed under the Act. 9. The petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside 5 956-wp-7274-2024 the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar being case no. tk-dz-2022@tekcanh&2@rdzkj@jLrk@flvkj 22/2022 dated 05.04.2023 and order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer bearing case no. tk-dza-2023@vihy@vkjvksvkj@lhvkj& 2023@73 dated 18.06.2024, granting liberty as aforesaid. 10. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) Rushikesh/2025