7 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 305 OF 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 7 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 305 OF 2017 IN WP/9552/2015 Balaji Vitthalrao Jadhav Versus Mrs. Dhammpriya Gaikwad, Tahsildar __________________________________________________________ • Adv. Tandale Fulchad R. for the Petitioner • Mr. Rajdeep D. Raut, A.G.P. for State __________________________________________________________ CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 05, 2026 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The order under contempt dated 21.11.2015 indicates that this Court had directed the concerned Mamlatdar to decide the application of the petitioner for removal of the encroachment on the Panand road (पाणंद रस्ता). 3) Learned A.G.P. has placed on record communication dated 28.06.2018, mentioning that there was no encroachment on the Panand road. It was also intimated to the petitioner that the road from Gat No. 24, Komal Kamble Page| 1 of 2 2026:BHC-AUG:47047-DB 7 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 305 OF 2017 having a width of 20 feet is given, in lieu of the Panand road, which is not encroached upon. 4) As such, the grievance of the petitioner was redressed in the year 2018 itself. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a fresh encroachment on the said road, due to which the petitioner is unable to use the same. However, it gives rise to a fresh cause of action and the petitioner can raise the said issue before the Mamlatdar. Even in the order under contempt, it is mentioned that if there are procedural infirmities and the same are cured by the petitioner, the petitioner can approach the Mamlatdar for redressal of his grievance. 6) In view of the above, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Mamlatdar for redressal of his grievance afresh. The Contempt Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) JUDGE (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE Komal Kamble Page| 2 of 2