1 WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 36 WRIT PETITION NO. 9286 OF 2025 NANA KAMA PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ashraf M. Patel & Ms. Vandana B. Kakde h/f Mr. Avhad Abhijeet Padmakar. AGP for Respondents/State : Ms. D. S. Jape. Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 13 : Mr. Bhushan Mahajan. ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10907 OF 2025 IN WP/9286/2025 BHAVSING HARCHAND PARADESHI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS … Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Bhushan Mahajan. AGP for Respondents/State : Ms. D. S. Jape. Advocate for respective Respondents : Mr. Ashraf M. Patel & Ms. Vandana B. Kakde h/f Mr. Avhad Abhijeet Padmakar. ... CORAM : MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 04.09.2026 F INAL ORDER :- 1. The petitioner is assailing the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pachora, dated 04.07.2025 in Revision Application No.49 of 2023 confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar, dated 06.07.2023 allowing application filed by the complainant thereby directing the petitioner not to cause any obstruction on the right of way available to the respondents 2026:BHC-AUG:40497-DB 2 WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt herein from Gut No.161 and 162/2 on the south Bandh of Gut running south-east of the cart road for commuting, and transportation. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the earlier round of challenge to the order passed by the Tahsildar, the revision filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 16.01.2024, thereby setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. The order of S.D.O. has been rightly passed holding that the existence of cart road has not been revealed in the spot verification panchnama. Therefore, S.D.O. had directed respondent No.3/Tahsildar, Bhadgaon to re-visit the subject road and decide the Rasta case afresh. This order dated 16.01.2024 passed by respondent No.2/Sub Divisional Officer was challenged by the respondents in Writ Petition No.4168 of 2024, which was partly allowed by quashing and setting aside the order passed on 16.01.2024. 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for petitioner that respondent No.2 has passed an order in Revision No.49 of 2023, after the order of remand passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4168 of 2024 and directed the Tahsildar, Bhadgaon to make spot inspection and decide the Rasta Case No.26. This order passed by respondent No.2 on 19.12.2024 was again 3 WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.5891 of 2025, which was allowed and the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was once again set aside by this Court. This Court directed the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the revision on its own merits on the basis of material already placed before him. Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Officer has once again decided Revision No.49 of 2023 vide order dated 04.07.2025, rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that, respondent No.2/Sub Divisional Officer is not consistent in his orders. There are three different orders passed by him taking different stance on each occasion. In order dated 19.12.2024, he has observed that in the spot panchnama, no road is shown; in order dated 04.07.2025, it is observed that there is a road shown in spot panchnama. Thus, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner a contradictory stand is taken on each occasion, when the matter was subjected to challenge before respondent No.2. 5. An objection is also raised by the petitioner on the ground that respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.3 has 4 WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt failed to consider that affidavit filed by Manohar Sakharam Patil is not admissible, unless he is made party to the present proceedings. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that although the land of Manohar Sakharam Patil is also affected by the road which is claimed in the application, filed under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. He is not made a party and his affidavit has been taken into consideration by the Authorities. It is submitted that necessary inquiry about the owners of land, whose lands are likely to be affected by the order passed by the Tahsildar is not made party in the present proceedings. According to him, they have failed to ascertain who is the owner of land affected by the road of the respective gut numbers. It is submitted that even son of the petitioner namely Shankar is a necessary party to the proceedings. 7. He further submitted that land Gut No.163/1 is owned by the petitioner along with his elder son Baliram Nana Patil, who is also necessary party. Yet he has not been added as a party to the proceedings. It is submitted that there is an alternate road that exists from the bank of Girna river which is in use. Thus, the claim of the respondent herein is not maintainable. The Regular Civil Suit No.38 of 2023 is also 5 WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt pending in the Civil Court. In Regular Civil Suit No.38 of 2023, he has categorically relied on the panchnama conducted by the Tahsildar, Bhadgaon on 13.01.2023, who has recorded that no cart track was found on the east side bank of the Bandh of Gut 162/2, 162/1/A. In spite of the observation recorded in the spot inspection, the Tahsildar, Bhadgaon has recorded that the petitioner shall not obstruct the road abutting the Bandh from Gut No.161 and 162/2, when no such road was not available as per the panchnama. It is submitted that when the cart road itself was not available as per the spot panchnama, there is no question of causing any obstruction on the said road. He would further submit that the same Authority who has allowed his revision vide order dated 06.01.2024, by setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 06.07.2023, has taken a 360 degree U turn while passing the impugned order dated 04.07.2025. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, as well as the Tahsildar, Bhadgaon dated 06.07.2023 is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the contesting respondent would submit that the spot panchnama conducted by respondent No.3/Tahsildar, Bhadgaon has been 6 WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt placed on record which is incomplete. The spot panchnama includes the GPS photos and map which is not annexed to the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner before the date of spot panchnama has ploughed the field so as to support his claim that there was no road in existence prior to the spot panchnama, which is reflected from the GPS photos clicked by respondent No.3/Tahsildar. He further submits that the village map of village Savade reveals that the petitioner’s land Gut No.161 is adjacent to the Savade-Pimpri village road. Gut No.161 is between Gut No.164 and Savade-Pimpri Village road. There is no alternate road available for approaching the respondents land bearing Gut No.164, but to approach through the petitioner’s land from Gut No.161. He submits that respondent No.13/Mahohar Sakharam Patil has placed on record an affidavit before Respondent No.3/Tahsildar, Bhadgaon admitting that respondent Nos.4 to 12 have east- west Wahiwat road upto Gut No.161, at the south boundary. He further submits that application below Exh.6 filed by the petitioner in RCS.No.38 of 2023, has also been rejected by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhadgaon when it was found that the respondents, are not trying to create any new road or access way from the suit property. It is observed that, the respondent farmers have no alternate way other than the one 7 WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt claimed, seeking customary way before the learned Tahsildar. According to him, the Tahsildar has rightly appreciated that, the alleged access way has been ploughed by the petitioner Nana Patil and sown Jawar in his field. The place where such land is ploughed is contiguous to the road which is in existence in Gut No.162/2, at the south boundary. This contention of the petitioner is supported by the owner of Gut No.162/2 Manohar Sakharam Patil. Hence, according to him, the Tahsildar, Bhadgaon as well as the Sub Divisional Officer, Pachora has passed orders after careful scrutiny of the documents which does not deserve any interference. 9. The learned AGP has also opposed any interference in the order impugned on the ground that after the last remand order, the SDO has heard the parties in the revision application, after careful scrutiny of the material evidence placed on record, the SDO has come to the conclusion that the access way passing through Gut No.161 and 162/2 was in existence and was used by respondent Nos.4 to 12, which is obstructed by the present petitioner, by destroying the said access way. It is therefore, submitted that considering that the petitioner has ploughed the road, that was the access available to the respondents to approach their own fields, the SDO has 8 WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt rightly passed the order after taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner and the actual circumstances existing on the site which does not deserve any interference. Hence, writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Heard the respective parties and perused various orders passed by the SDO. After remanding the matter twice back to him for passing appropriate orders, the final order has been passed by the SDO on 04.07.2025, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The SDO while passing the order has relied on the spot inspection report-cum-panchnama, as well as the map of the site in respect of Gut No.161 and 169 as well as the Gut numbers of the respective applicants produced on record. The Tahsildar, Bhadgaon in his spot inspection report dated 13.01.2023, has reported that between Gut No.161 and 169 there appears to be a common Bandh, which is existing upto Gut No.162/2. The owner of Gut No.161 had sown crop upto the Bandh between Gut No.161 and 162/2. The cart track appears from Bandh on Gut No.162/2 to 163/1. Similarly, a cart track appears on the east side ahead of Gut No.161 upto Gut No.162/2. Thus, he has arrived at the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner appears to be correct as per the spot inspection report. As regards the claim of the 9 WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt present petitioner about purchase of land from Manohar Sakharam Patil in Gut No.162/2 to the extent of 3R. for the purpose of approach road is concerned. The SDO has held that the person from whom the present petitioner have purchased the land i.e. Manohar Patil has filed an affidavit on 26.04.2023 stating that there is customary right of way from Gut No.162/2 and the claim of the present petitioner that alternate way is available to the applicants is not correct. Said Manohar Patil in his evidence on affidavit has clearly stated that there is a customary right of way from Gut No.161 and 162 which is obstructed by the petitioner. The SDO has relied on the contents of the evidence affidavit filed by Manohar Patil whose land is allegedly purchased by the son of the petitioner for approach road, which is claimed to be the customary way by the applicants. Although it is claimed by the present petitioner that his son has purchased the land belonging to Manohar Patil, but no such entry appears to be taken in the 7/12 extract by the son namely Baliram Patil. Thus, the claim of the petitioner has not been accepted by the SDO. The SDO has also relied on the spot inspection report and the photographs produced by the respondents herein dated 19.04.2023, which clearly indicates that the customary way has been destroyed by 10 WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt ploughing the field and destroying the evidence of existence of road. 11. Reliance is also placed on the GPS map as well as the village map which proves the existence of a customary road between Gut No.161 and 162/2 which has been obstructed and destroyed by ploughing the field. It needs to be appreciated that although it is the contention of the petitioner that in the previous order, the SDO has passed an order in his favour, whereas the same SDO after remand has reversed the order on the same set of facts, cannot be accepted for the reason that while allowing the revision vide order dated 16.01.2024, the SDO has remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar and directed him to conduct spot inspection and thereafter pass an order afresh on the basis of documents as well as inspection, which has been conducted subsequently. This order has been set aside by this Court by directing SDO to decide the revision on its own merits, on the basis of material already pressed into service by the parties. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that earlier the SDO has passed an order in his favour does not hold good, as the matter was remanded by the very order to the Tahsildar for passing fresh order. So far as the order impugned dated 04.07.2025 is 11 WP.9286-25 (Final Order).odt concerned, it has been passed by granting opportunity to all the contesting parties to lead evidence and placed on record the documents relied upon and on the basis of the documents, such as the spot inspection report dated 13.01.2023, the maps produced on record, the GPS map, the affidavit of Manohar Patil, who is the land owner of Gut No.162/2 and the 7/12 extracts of the lands, the SDO has passed the order impugned on merits. Reliance is also placed on the photographs produced by the respondents herein dated 19.04.2023, which are also placed on record along with the affidavit filed by respondent No.4 which clearly shows that the possession of the land before ploughing the field and after ploughing the field, even the village map shows the existence of customary road between Gut Nos.169/1, 169/2 and 169/3. Thus, I do not find any merit in the challenge raised by the petitioner. Hence, writ petition does not deserve any consideration. 12. The Writ Petition is dismissed by upholding the order passed by the SDO, dated 04.07.2025. 13. Civil application is disposed of accordingly. (MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.) ... vmk/-