52-WP-11482-2025=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11482 OF 2025 Amir Dilawar Sheikh … Petitioner Vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Kolhapur And Ors … Respondents …………. Mr. Nikhil Pawar a/w Rajdeep Shitole for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhijit Vasantrao Desai for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026. P. C. : . Heard both sides. 2. The petition is preferred against the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the authorities below under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, granting injunction against the petitioner under Section 5 of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application under Section 5 of the Act was not tenable and it is hit by non-joinder of necessary party and misjoinder of the parties. The petitioner is not said to be the owner of Gat No. 100/2 but his father was the owner. The agreement executed by the father also is stated to be not binding upon him. It is contended that unless there is transfer of easementary, no right Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 3 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2026.08.20 16:09:20 +0530 52-WP-11482-2025=.doc can be claimed by respondent nos.4 and 5. It is submitted that there is clear cut alternate way for respondent nos. 4 and 5 from the Eastern side of the property. Both the authorities below are stated to have committed error of jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned orders. It is submitted that the existence of road in question is corroborated by the agreement as well as panchanama. The alleged alternative road is, in fact, a stream and cannot be used for ingress or egress. It is submitted that father of the petitioner did not object the right to use the way. 5. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and with their assistance I have gone through the judgment and orders passed by both the authorities below. The petitioner’s father Dilawar M. Sheikh is the owner of land Gat No. 100/2. The respondent nos.4 and 5 are the owners of Gat No. 100/3, which is on the Northern side of Gat No. 100/2. An agreement was executed on 27.04.2016 between father of the petitioner and respondent no.4 - Madhuri R. Kolte, permitting the respondents to use the approach road, which passes through Gat No. 100/2. The cause of action for respondent nos. 4 and 5 is the obstruction or impediment at the instance of the petitioner. Father of the petitioner Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 3 52-WP-11482-2025=.doc cannot be said to be necessary party. 6. The proceedings under Section 5 of the Act are summary in nature. The title and the substantive rights cannot be adjudicated in those proceedings. The proceedings are in the form of stop gap arrangement to give urgent relief for the members of the agrarian committee. The submission that the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary party or misjoinder cannot be countenanced. 7. The panchanama produced on record in unequivocal terms shows that an obstruction was created by the petitioner. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of the facts. I find no error of jurisdiction and perversity in the impugned orders. 8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 3