1 924-wp-12276-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12276 OF 2023 Namdeo Anaji Alekar And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secreary And Others ... Mr. D. P. Palodkar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for Respondent nos.4 and 5 ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- . Holding that the respondents blocked the natural flow of the Government Nala which was adjacent to petitioners’ land, the petitioners took recourse to Section 4 and 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (“the Act of 1906” for brevity) seeking directions to the respondents to restore the natural flow of the Nala adjoining gut nos.1016 and 1058 at mauje Shrigonda. 2. Pursuant to the application, the Mamlatdar conducted a panchnama and afforded an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. By order dated 29.04.2022, the Mamlatdar allowed the said application and directed the respondents to clear the natural flow of the Nala adjacent to gut nos.1016 and 1058. 3. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the respondents took recourse to Section 23 of the Act of 1906 before the Revisional Authority @ Sub Divisional Officer, Shrigonda-Parner and challenged the order passed by the Mamlatdar. The contention of the respondents was that (i) they had never blocked the natural flow of the Nala; and (ii) the panchnama 2026:BHC-AUG:43181 2 924-wp-12276-2023 was bogus one, having been prepared behind their back and without any notice to them. After hearing both the parties, by decision and order dated 24.04.2023, the Revisional Authority allowed the Revision Application partly and relegated the matter back to the Mamlatdar for fresh consideration. 4. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/original applicants are before this court. 5. Mr. D. P. Palodkar, learned Advocate for the petitioners would submit that, since the application was filed taking recourse to Section 5(1) of the Act of 1906, the Revisional Authority has dealt with the revision under Section 5(2) of the Act. He submits that relegation of the matter back to the Mamlatdar only on the basis of the findings under Section 5(2) is absolutely misplaced and needs to be quashed and set aside. With this, Mr. Palodkar, learned Advocate prays to allow the Writ Petition. 6. Per contra, Mr. R. R. Karpe, learned Advocate for the respondents would stand by the reasoning rendered by the Revisional Authority. He would vehemently point out from the recitals of the panchnama that the same was prepared behind the back of the respondents. He would submit that it is only after demonstrating to the Revisional Authority to its satisfaction that the panchnama was prepared behind the back of his clients, the said relegation was ordered. Mr. Karpe, learned Advocate for the respondents would submit that it is a fit case wherein the Mamlatdar should conduct the inquiry de novo affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Thus, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 3 924-wp-12276-2023 7. I have heard learned advocates for respective parties extensively. Apparently, the Revisional Authority in its judgment and order has referred to Section 5(2) of the Act. There is no discussion as regards to the case under Section 5(1) of the Act. True, after recording that the panchnama was prepared behind the back of the revision petitioners, the Revisional Authority has relegated the matter back to the Mamlatdar for fresh consideration. However, it was incumbent on the part of the Revisional Authority to render findings as regards to main application under Section 5(1) of the Act. 8. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to pass following order: ORDER a. The writ petition stands allowed. b. The order dated 24.0402023 passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Application No.200 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. c. The matter is relegated back to the Revisional Authority to hear the parties and render its findings afresh. d. Let this job be done by the Revisional Authority within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties. e. Both the parties are at consensus to appear before the Revisional Authority on 05.10.2026. No separate notice of appearance is necessary. 4 924-wp-12276-2023 f. Suffice to note, the order passed by the First Authority/Mamlatdar shall remain stayed till final decision in the Revision Proceedings. g. All contentions kept open. h. Needless to mention, this Court has not observed on merits of the case of any side. i. Writ petition stands disposed of. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026