903-wp-6143-2026.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6143 OF 2026 Appa Yedu Mete Died Through Lrs Raichand Appa Mete And Ors VERSUS State Of Maharashtra Through Its Collector Ahmednagar And Ors ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Manjushri V. Narwade a/w Mr. V.P. Narwade AGP for Respondent/State : Mrs. P.V. Diggikar ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : JULY 22, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Present writ petition takes exception to order dated 09.03.2026 passed by District Judge, Shrigonda in Misc. Civil Appeal No.29 of 2025, thereby upholding order dated 01.09.2023 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Shrigonga below Exhibit-5 in R.C.S. No.175 of 2023. 2. The petitioners suffered order under Section 5 of Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. Thereafter, petitioners filed revision application before Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 23(2) of Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected revision application and confirmed order of Tahsildar. The petitioners challenged said order before this Court in writ petition. This Court rejected petitioners writ petition upholding orders passed by Mamlatdar and Sub-Divisional Officer. Thereafter, petitioners approached Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court 2026:BHC-AUG:30320 903-wp-6143-2026.odt (2) confirmed order passed by this Court, however, granted liberty to petitioners to file suit before Civil Court. Accordingly, petitioners filed R.C.S. No.175 of 2023 before Civil Judge Senior Division at Shrigonda along with application at Exhibit-5. The Trial Court after evaluation of material tendered by plaintiffs, rejected application for temporary injunction vide order dated 01.09.2023. The petitioners thereafter filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.29 of 2025 before District Judge at Shrigonda, who rejected appeal vide order dated 09.03.2026. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned advocate appearing for petitioners strenuously contends that orders passed under Mamlatdar’s Courts Act are exfacie illegal as there are two panchnamas drawn by revenue authorities. In first panchnama, customary way was shown, however, in subsequent panchnama existence of construction of bricks and trees are noted. As such, allegation that customary way was in existence could not have been accepted. 4. In light of aforesaid submissions, this Court perused reasoning adopted by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court while dealing with petitioners application for temporary injunction. The Trial Court observed that subsequent panchanama shows existence of tree, houses and cattle shed and petitioners/plaintiffs have submitted assessment extract of house property bearing No.474, 474/1, 474/2, 475 and 476. The tree, houses and cattle sheds are shown located 903-wp-6143-2026.odt (3) adjacent to customary way and not over bund through which customary way proceeds. The Trial Court categorically observed that customary way does not get obstructed by construction of houses and cattle shed. The customary way has been obstructed due to ploughing of bund. Therefore, presence of tree, houses and cattle shed in land of plaintiffs would not render order passed by Tahsildar ineffective or it cannot be said that proceeding initiated under Section 5 of Mamlatdar’s Courts Act was barred by law of limitation. The aforesaid finding of Trial Court is reaffirmed by District Judge in his order while rejecting petitioners appeal. 5. In aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court finds no jurisdictional error in orders impugned. Writ Petition stands rejected. 6. In light of peculiar facts and circumstances of case, learned advocate appearing for petitioner pursues this Court to expedite hearing of suit. In light of submissions advanced, this Court expect that Trial Court would endeavour to decide suit expeditiously. 7. Parties to co-operate. (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) Mujaheed//