929-wp-444-2024.odt -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 929 WRIT PETITION NO. 444 OF 2024 1. Alka w/o Pandit Ghongade, Age:-46 years, Occ. Agri., 2. Pandit s/o Keru Ghongade, Age:-50 years, Occ. Agri., 3. Aditya s/o Pandit Ghongade, Age:-36 years, Occ. Agri., All R/o Takli Lonar, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Petitioners VERSUS 1. The Sub Divisional Officer, Shrigonda, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 2. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Shrigonda, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar, 3. Baban s/o Kisan Godse, Age:-50 years, Occ. Agri., 4. Sunil s/o Kisan Godse Age: 48 years, Occ. Agri., 5. Yuvraj s/o Rajaram Kale, Age: 46 years, Occ. Agri., 6. Santosh s/o Rajaram kale, Age- 40 years, Occ. Agri., 7. Gangadas s/o Maruti Bodkhe, Age: - 45 years, Occ. Agri, 8. Vithoba s/o Ganpat Bodkhe Age: 46 years, Occ. Agri Narwade 2025:BHC-AUG:17330 929-wp-444-2024.odt -2- 9. Dnyandev s/o Maruti Bodkhe, Age 43 years, Occ. Agri., 10. Navnath s/o Vithoba Bodkhe, Age-40 years, Occ. Agri, 11. Mainabai w/o Vithoba Bodkhe Age:-39 years, Occ. Agri, 12. Sanjay s/o Vithoba Bodkhe, Age:-48 years, Ore. Agri, 13. Vikas s/o Pandit Ghongade Age:-44 years, Occ. Agri Respondent No.3 to 13. R/o Takli Lonar, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents ... Mr. D. S. Patil h/f. Mr. Shailesh S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondents/State Mr. Devdatt P. Palodkar, Advocate for respondent nos.3 to 13 ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : 3rd JULY 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This petition takes exception to concurrent orders passed under the provisions of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (for short “the Act”). The learned Mamlatdar has vide order dated 14.02.2022 directed the present petitioner to remove obstruction on the road forming subject matter of the dispute. A revision application filed by the petitioner was also rejected. Narwade 929-wp-444-2024.odt -3- 2. Mr. Bhise, the learned AGP raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of challenging the orders by filing a Civil Suit. He has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the matter of Mohommad Khan s/o Rahim Khan Vs. Shankar Maroti Dhage and another, reported in 2017 (3) Mh.L.J. 135, wherein it is held that orders passed by authorities under the Act are not final and they are subject to adjudication of rights by the Civil Court. A Specific question was framed by this Court, as to whether order passed by the Mamlatdar under the said Act can be challenged before a Civil Court and the said issue is answered in the affirmative. This Court has relied on earlier decision in the matter of Rajendra Sheshrao Shendge Vs. Smt. Shobhatai S. Ravate and anr. reported in AIR 2007 Bombay 90 to arrived at said conclusion. 3. Perusal of Section 22 of the Act will demonstrate that orders passed by the Mamlatdar continue to operate only until otherwise decreed or ordered by a competent Civil Court. The legislature has purposefully used the words decree and order both which implies that even interim orders passed by Civil Court, shall prevail over orders passed by Mamlatdar under Section 5 as also order passed by Sub Divisional Officer under Section 23 of the Act. 4. In view of the above, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Bhise, AGP deserves to be upheld. The petition is disposed of with Narwade 929-wp-444-2024.odt -4- liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal by challenging the orders impugned by filing a Civil Suit. 5. The interim order dated 18.01.2024 passed by this Court shall continue to operate for a period of one month from today i.e. upto 3rd August 2025. [ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.] Narwade