44 WP-12792-26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12792 OF 2026 Sukdeo Jabaji Dongre & ors. ..Petitioners Versus Sanjay Walmik Avhad …Respondent Mr. Rajesh B Parab, for the Petitioners. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 12th OCTOBER 2026 ORDER :- 1. Heard, Mr. Rajesh Parab, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 09th July, 2026 passed by the Deputy Collector, Yeola in Revision No. 201/2025 whereby the revision application preferred by the petitioners/original opponents against an order passed by the Tahsildar under the provisions of Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 thereby directing the removal of impediment on the road leading to the filed of the respondent, bearing Gat No. 100/2, Mauje Ekwai-Karhi, came to be dismissed. SAINATH, PA 1/3 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.10.16 09:08:34 +0530 44 WP-12792-26.DOC 3. Mr. Parab, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the Authorities below have misconstrued the material on record. The spot inspection report was not correctly appreciated. Nor the Mamlatdar has recorded adequate reasons while rendering affirmative findings on the issues of the jurisdiction and limitation. The Revisional Authority has simply endorsed the view of the Mamlatdar. 4. I find it difficult to accede to the submissions of Mr. Parab. The spot inspection report makes two vital facts abundantly clear: first, the road was in existence and second, the petitioners/opponents had caused impediment in the access of the respondent/applicant to his field bearing Gat No. 100/2. Conversely, the petitioners failed to establish that, the respondent – applicant had an alternate access to his field, though that may not be of decisive significance. 5. The Tahsildar on the basis of the spot inspection report has recorded findings of fact as to the existence of the road and impediment caused by the petitioners. The Deputy Collector found no reason to interfere with the objective findings of fact recorded by the Tahsildar. SAINATH, PA 2/3 44 WP-12792-26.DOC 6. In exercise of its limited supervisory jurisdiction, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 7. Thus, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA 3/3