-1- 72-wp-3845-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3845 OF 2025 GOVIND NARAYAN SHINDE VERSUS THE COLLECTOR PARBHANI AND OTHERS ...... Advocate for the Petitioner : Dr. Anagha N. Pedgaonkar AGP for Respondent - State : Mr. R. K. Ingole Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : Mr. Shahaji B. Ghatol Patil ...… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 27th JULY, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The present writ petition takes exception to order dated 17.10.2023 passed below Exhibit-5 by Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani in R.C.S. No.371 of 2023 as well as order dated 12.02.2025 passed by District Judge, Parbhani in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2023. 2. The petitioner suffered order under Section 143 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (for short, “MLR Code”), which is confirmed by Sub Divisional Officer. The petitioner thereafter filed Regular Civil Suit No. 371 of 2023 before learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani for perpetual injunction along with application for grant of temporary injunction against respondents from constructing any road in terms of order dated 26.04.2023 passed by Tahsildar/ Mamlatdar 2026:BHC-AUG:31656 -2- 72-wp-3845-2025 under Section 143 of MLR Code. The Trial Court after considering rival contentions rejected petitioner’s application for temporary injunction. The petitioner filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2023 before District Judge, Parbhani. Learned District Judge confirmed the order passed by Trial Court. In this backdrop, present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for petitioner would submit that respondents have an alternate way to approach their land. The Tahsildar as well as Sub Divisional Officer did not ascertain aforesaid position and relying upon a false panchanama, order under Section 143 of MLR Code has been passed. She would contend that, if new way is constructed as per order passed by Tahsildar/Mamlatdar, petitioners dwelling hut and mango trees on bandh would be destroyed. She would therefore urge to direct the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of suit. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ghatol Patil, learned Advocate appearing for respondent nos.3 to 5 submits that, respondents did not have alternate way to approach their land. The Tahsildar/Mamlatdar has considered aforesaid exigencies, eventually passed an order under Section 143 of MLR Code granting way. 5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned -3- 72-wp-3845-2025 Advocate appearing for respective parties and on perusal of reasons recorded by Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court, it can be observed that Tahsildar/Mamlatdar while exercising jurisdiction conferred under Section 143 of MLR Code recorded a finding that respondents do not have alternate way to approach their land. The petitioner is obstructing only way that was available to respondents. The findings recorded by Tahsildar/Mamlatdar prima facie appears based on panchanama and statement of adjacent landowners. 6. The Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court while dealing with application for temporary injunction filed by petitioner in suit, clearly observed that petitioner could not bring to notice of Court the existence of any alternate way for respondents to approach their field. It is further observed that respondents would suffer irreparable loss, if injunction is granted. The balance of convenience is also found to be in favour of respondents. Accordingly rejected application filed by petitioner for temporary injunction. 7. In light of aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court finds no merit in writ petition. However, it needs to be observed here that, if respondents proceed to construct way on basis of order passed by Tahsildar/Mamlatdar, they shall not damage dwelling house of -4- 72-wp-3845-2025 petitioner, existence of which is noted in panchanama, nor they would damage grown-up mango trees, if any, on the bandh. The execution of order passed under Section 143 of MLR Code shall be subject to final outcome of suit. The respondent nos.3 to 5 shall file undertaking before Trial Court that in case suit is decreed, accepting case of petitioner, they shall remove constructed way on their expenses. 8. With these observations/directions, writ petition stands dismissed. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Tandale