1 949-wp-12461-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12461 OF 2024 Bharat Maroti Ambhore And Another VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others ... Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh h/f Mr. A. D. Kawre, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. S. R. Bagul h/f Mr. B. N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for Respondent nos.6 to 17 ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- . Petitioners are the owners and possessors of agricultural land bearing Gut No.159 at village Sawargaon, Taluka Ardhapur, District Nanded. Respondents are the owners and possessors of their agricultural lands bearing Gut number 162, 164, 165 and 167. The respondents initiated proceedings taking recourse to Section 4 and 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (“the Act of 1906” for brevity), before the Tahsildar contending that they had a usage pathway, (Wahivat Rasta) to access to their agricultural lands through Gut Nos.159 and 160. 2026:BHC-AUG:42878 2 949-wp-12461-2024 2. The respondents further contended that the petitioners obstructed the said pathway, and hence they were constrained to take recourse to the proceedings under the Act of 1906. Pursuant to the application, the Tahsildar arranged Panchanama. Accordingly, a Panchanama was conducted in May 2021. On the same day it appears that some settlement was arrived at between the parties whereby the petitioners permitted the respondents to access their agricultural lands for the ongoing sugarcane harvesting season. Thereafter, the proceedings were not pursued further. 3. However, on 31.05.2022, the Tahsildar, Ardhapur @ Mamlatdar passed an order thereby observing that there existed a usage pathway for the applicants therein through the land of the petitioners and directions were issued to clear the said usage way. It was also directed to the Circle Officer and Tahsildar to clear the road and to take it on record of the 7/12 extract. 4. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Revision Petition under Section 23 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nanded. By order dated 02.08.2024, the Sub-Divisional Officer concurred with the findings recorded by the first authority and the Revision came to be dismissed. 3 949-wp-12461-2024 5. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. I have heard both the sides extensively and also perused their pleadings. Suffice to note, the proceedings under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act are for immediate relief. The only thing that was to be established is that there was a pre- existing pathway which was blocked subsequently, and hence direction could be issued by the Mamlatdar to clear such pathway. It is a trite law that the parties are required to agitate their civil rights before the Civil Court for their desired purpose corresponding to their rival rights. What is crucial for passing an order under the Act of 1906 for directing to remove an obstruction or to clear a pathway is the Panchnama and the observations recorded therein. 7. The panchnama dated 20.12.2021 is produced before me at page no.18. Upon careful perusal of the said panchnama, it does not appear that the Panchas have recorded the pre-existance of pathway or that such pathway was subsequently obstructed. What is recorded therein is merely the contentions of the parties. The panchnama concludes with the purported settlement whereby the petitioners permitted the respondents to use their land for 4 949-wp-12461-2024 accessing their respective agricultural lands for the then prevailing sugarcane harvesting season. 8. On the basis of the above, the first authority has passed the order dated 31.05.2022. I find that the panchnama is apparently a deficit one to bring the first authority to the conclusion that there was a pre-existing pathway and the applicants could take recourse of Section 4 and 5 of the Act of 1906. In fact, since the panchnama procedure ended with an amicable settlement between the parties, the Tahsildar would have been justified if he would have reopened the matter and have conducted a correct panchnama. However, the same exercise is not done and the order dated 31.05.2022 came to be passed. 9. I am of the considered view that on the basis of such panchnama, the order could not stand. In view of this, I find that the Mamlatdar @ the Tahsildar, erred in passing the order dated 31.05.2022. The Sub-Divisional officer i.e. Revisional Authority also erred in not considering the matter in this perspective. In view of this, I find that a successful case is made out by the petitioners to call interference in the orders passed by both the authorities. Hence, the following order: 5 949-wp-12461-2024 ORDER a. Writ Petition stands allowed. b. The order dated 31.04.2022 passed by the Mamlatdar @ Tahsildar and the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer are quashed and set aside. c. Suffice to note, the parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court for establishment of their civil rights, if so advised. d. If parties approach to the Civil Court, the observations made by the Authorities or by this Court would remain to the extent of present proceedings. e. Writ Petition stands disposed of. 10. Mr. S. R. Bagul, Advocate for the respondents submits that by way of an interim relief this Court permitted the respondents to use petitioners’ land as a footway. 11. The said interim relief is continued for a period of further six weeks from today. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026