911-WP-13307-2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 911 WRIT PETITION NO. 13307 OF 2019 Vijay Bhausaheb Shinde And Others VERSUS Fakira Chilloba Shinde And Others ….. Mr. Darandale Ganesh P., Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. V. V. Tarde, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for the Respondents – State ….. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 08.01.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The present proceeding arises out of the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Tahsildar, Rahuri in Rasta Case No.14/2016, whereby an application filed by Respondent No.1 came to be allowed and the said order dated 04.07.2018 came to be confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrirampur, in Revision Application No.14/2018. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Panchnama carried out pursuant to an Application filed by the Respondent No.1 under Sections 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 does not reflect that any pathway was in existence. He, therefore, submits that both the Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer failed to consider this material aspects of the matter and recorded findings which are perverse. Sameer/January-2026 1 2026:BHC-AUG:781 911-WP-13307-2019.odt 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents supports the order passed by the Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer. 5. I have gone through the order passed by both the authorities. More particularly, the Panchnama, placed on record at Page No.32 of the paper-book of the present petition, clearly reveals that there was a pathway measuring 2 to 3 feet on the boundary of Gat Nos.224 and 225. It thus reveals that, a road was in existence and that there was obstruction at the hands of the Petitioners. The said fact was duly considered by both the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer. 6. The very object of the Act is to ensure that where a customary pathway was in existence and an obstruction is caused thereto, the Tahsildar / Mamlatdar is competent to remove such obstruction. In the present case, the existence of the road and obstruction has been clearly noted in the Panchnama. As both the authorities have concurrently held against the Petitioners, I do not find any perversity in the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Tahsildar, Rahuri in Rasta Case No.14/2016 and order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Shrirampur, in Revision Application No.14/2018, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Hence, the Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the civil suit is pending between the parties. It is made clear that, the civil court shall decide the matter independently on its own merits, without being influenced by the findings recorded by the revenue authorities. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Sameer/January-2026 2