wp 5135-2026.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5135 OF 2026 PETITIONERS : 1. Anandrao Chindhu Sakarkar, Age: about 67 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, R/o. Vitthal Mandir Ward, Shegaon (Bk.), Taluka Warora, District Chandrapur. 2. Keshav Chindhu Sakarkar, Age: about 62 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of Vitthal Mandir Ward, Shegaon (Bk.), Taluka Warora, District Chandrapur. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 2. The Naib Tahsildar, Warora, Having his office at Tehsil Office, Warora, Taluka Warora, District Chandrapur. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Warora, Having his office at the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Warora, District Chandrapur. 2026:BHC-NAG:13826 wp 5135-2026.odt 2 4. Vijay Bhadurao Sakarkar, Age: about 51 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of Math Ward, Shegaon (Bk.), Taluka Warora, District Chandrapur. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Y.A. Kullarwar, Advocatefor petitioner(s). Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, AGP for respondent/State. Mr. P.P. Dhok, Advocate and Mr. P.K. Mayakarkar, Advocate for respondent No. 4. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 07.10.2026. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 14.10.2026. JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. The present petition challenges Order dated 31.10.2025 in case No. jk-ek-dz-11@,elh,&5@2024&2025] passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 12.06.2026 in Revision case No. jk-v-dz-3‹@,elh,&5@2025&2026, passed by respondent No.3. 3. The facts, as can be seen from the petition, are as under: The respondent No. 4 herein filed an application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act alleging obstruction to the wp 5135-2026.odt 3 Southern portion of the road. On 31.12.2024, the Talathi conducted spot examination and prepared a spot panchanama. The respondent No. 2, thereafter issued notice to the petitioners on an application filed by the respondent No. 4. The petitioners filed detailed reply before the Naib Tahsildar, denying existence of Southern road. However, the Naib Tahsildar, Warora, passed the impugned order directing removal of alleged obstruction on the Southern side. In a revision filed by the petitionesr, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Warora, confirmed the said order. Both these orders are challenged in the present petition. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 4, as also learned AGP for the respondent/State. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed me out that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar on 31.10.2025, is unsustainable in law in as much as it does not properly appreciate the evidence on record. By drawing attention to the said order, learned Counsel for petitioners would submit that the Tahsildar has recorded a finding that the respondent No. 4 has claimed a way from the Southern side. He also draws my attention to the fact that the Tahsildar has came to a conclusion that the applicants could not prove the road which they had wp 5135-2026.odt 4 demanded was available for ingress and egress, but it has permitted them the way so as not to non-suit them only on technical aspect. He, therefore, submits that the order is unsustainable in law. 6. He also points me out the operative part of the order, where a finding contrary to the conclusion recorded by the Tahsildar is drawn, in as much as even though the said authority records the finding that there is no existing road, it has granted a way only because it is convenient for the respondent No. 4. 7. As far as the order of the Appellate Authority is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that no reason, much less a justifiable one, is returned for confirming the order of the Tahsildar. 8. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, supports both the impugned orders. He submits that the orders are based on material on record and are thus finding of facts. He submits that there is no perversity in the impugned order and, being concurrent in nature, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. 9. Rival contentions fall for my consideration. 10. Admittedly, the disputed survey No. is 342, from the Southern portion of which has been claimed by the respondent wp 5135-2026.odt 5 No. 4. I have also gone through the spot panchanama, wherein it is categorically recorded that even though there is no such road available from the Southern side, if such a road is granted, it would be of more convenience to the respondent No. 4. I have also gone through the impugned order of the Tahsildar. As has been rightly pointed out by Mr. Kullarwar, that even though it has recorded a finding that the respondent No. 4 could not prove existence of a road, it has granted the said road only because all the agricultural operations of the respondent No. 4 has come to a standstill. The order of the Revisional Authority is too mechanical in nature and sans any reason. 11. In a recent judgment passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No. 12314 of 2018, (Principal Seat) learned Single Judge of this Court has succinctly stated the material to be relevant and to be considered while deciding proceedings under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. Paragraph No.36 of the said judgment is reproduced as under : “36. The following material is relevant and may be considered while deciding proceedings under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act: (i) The plaint and its description of the particular road or customary way, including its starting point, ending point, direction, width and the lands or Gat numbers through which it is claimed. wp 5135-2026.odt 6 (ii) Village map, cadastral map, Gat map and other revenue maps showing the existence and location of the road. (iii) Measurement maps or reports prepared by TILR, District Superintendent of Land Records or other competent Land Records authority. (iv) 7/12 extracts and other revenue records showing the road, shivrasta, pandhan, cart road or customary way. (v) Earlier orders passed under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code or other statutory proceedings concerning the same road. (vi) Spot panchnama recording the physical existence, direction, width, location and condition of the road and the nature and place of the alleged obstruction. (vii) Sketch or map prepared during the spot inspection showing the road with reference to the boundaries of the concerned Gat numbers. (viii) Photographs or other material showing the physical condition of the road, obstruction, cultivation, track marks or other signs of its earlier use. (ix) Oral evidence regarding the existence of the road, its period of use, the persons using it, the manner of use and the date on which the alleged obstruction was first caused. x) Documents and evidence showing long-standing use of the particular road or customary way. (xi) Government or local authority records, including Gram Panchayat, village forms, Zilla Parishad, Public Works Department or sanctioned road plans, wherever relevant. (xii) Earlier civil Court proceedings, judgments, orders, maps or Commissioner's reports concerning the same road, property or route. wp 5135-2026.odt 7 (xiii) Documents showing the possession and cultivation of the concerned Gat numbers, including crop inspection records, where relevant to the identity or use of the road. (xiv) Evidence relating to the exact date on which the obstruction or attempted obstruction first commenced, for determining the limitation under Section 5(3) and Section 5(4) of the Act. (xv) Any other relevant documentary, oral or physical evidence which helps in identifying the particular existing road or customary way and the alleged obstruction to that road.” 12. It is, therefore, clear that no such exercise has been undertaken by the respondent No. 4. The orders passed de hors the said exercise, are, therefore, unsustainable in law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order : ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 31.10.2025 in case No. jk-ek-dz- 11@,elh,&5@2024&2025 passed by respondent No. 2 and 12.06.2026 in Revision case No. jk-v-dz-3‹@,elh,&5@2025&2026, passed by respondent No.3, are quashed and set aside. 13. Rule is made absolute. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Jayashree.. Signed by: Mrs. Jayashree Pethe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 14/10/2026 18:52:21