14-WP6585-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6585 OF 2026 Bapurao Ramdas Chavan And Anr ...Petitioner Versus Navnath Shivaji Chavan And Ors …Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7014 OF 2026 Mr. Nilesh Wable, i/b Sumit Khaire, for the Petitioner. Mr. Jaydeep Deo, a/w Onkar Gawade, for Respondent Nos.1to4. Smt. Savita Prabhune, AGP for the State. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Order:- 1. Heard Mr. Wable, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Deo, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Smt. Prabhune, the learned AGP for the State. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality, propriety, and correctness of the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2026 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Pune, whereby an order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 (‘the Act, 1906’) dated 26th April, 2026 was quashed and set aside. 1/4 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.08 18:59:09 +0530 14-WP6585-2026.DOC 3. The petitioners preferred an application purpotedly under Section 5 of the Act of 1906 asserting, inter alia, that on 5th June, 2024, respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the holders of the land bearing Gat No. 257 had put impediments in the road leading to Gat No. 260, the petitioners land. The Tahsildar caused a site inspection to be conducted. On the basis of the site inspection report, as evidenced by the Panchanama, the Tahsildar passed an order directing the private respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to remove the impediment in the access to Gat No. 260 through Gat No. 257. 4. Being aggrieved, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 preferred a revision before the Sub-Divisional Officer. 5. By the impugned order, the Sub-Divisional Officer was persuaded to interfere with the order passed by the Tahsildar, primarily for the reason that by an order dated 27th December, 2019 in Rasta Case No. 143/SR/26/2018, right of way was granted by the Tahsildar over the east-west boundaries of Survey Nos. 256, 287, 288, and 286, and thereafter over north- south boundaries of Gat Nos. 286, 285, 299, 300, and 284. Since the petitioners had a 10 feet wide road to approach their land, granted under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (‘MLRC’), there was no propriety in seeking 2/4 14-WP6585-2026.DOC right of way through Gat No. 257 belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 4. 6. Mr. Wable, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, made an endeavor to urge that the order dated 27th December, 2019 in Rasta Case No. 143/SR/26/2018 had no relevance to the determination of the controversy between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In fact, the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein were the applicants in the said application, and at the instance of the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the order dated 27th December, 2019 was passed by the Tahsildar against the respondents therein. 7. The aforesaid submission does not merit countenance. First and foremost, it is necessary to note, the order dated 27th December, 2019 makes it abundantly clear that the Tahsildar, in exercise of the powers under Section 143 of the Code, had granted 10 feet wide right of way to their fields to the holders of the agricultural land bearing Gat Nos. 253, 254, 288, 287, 289, 256, and 260 over the east-west boundaries of lands bearing Gat Nos. 256, 287, 288, and 286, and thereafter over the north- south boundaries of the land Gat Nos. 286, 285, 299, 300, and 284. Secondly, the existence of the said road is reflected in the map of the spot inspection annexed to the Panchanama. The 3/4 14-WP6585-2026.DOC said road is shown in a dotted line from Gat No. 286 to Gat No. 260, albeit over the boundaries of the other Gat numbers. Thus, the Sub-Divisional Officer was well within his rights in observing that, despite the existence of the alternate way, which has been granted pursuant to the order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 143 of the MLRC, the petitioners had no reason to seek right of way through the land of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 8. The view taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, borne out by unimpeachable material, appears to be justifiable. Once the existence of right of way over the boundaries of the survey numbers, granted under Section 143 of the MLRC, is demonstrated, the application for removal of alleged impediment in the access through the land of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was not tenable. Therefore, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to entertain the petition. 9. The petition stands dismissed. 10. In view of dismissal of the petition, IA/7014/2026 also stands disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4