5 WP-11991-26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11991 OF 2026 Satish Uttam Bhong & ors. ..Petitioners Versus Radha Santosh Raut & ors. …Respondents Mr. Bhalchandra S Shinde, for the Petitioners. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 06th July, 2026, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners against an order dated 22nd December, 2025 passed by the Tahsildar under the provisions of Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (“Act, 1906”) directing the removal of impediment in a Rasta Case No.46/2024, came to be rejected. 3. Mr. Shinde, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that though the Tahsildar had caused a spot inspection to be carried out, yet, no notice of the said spot inspection was served on the petitioners. Attention of the Court SAINATH, PA 1/3 SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Digitally signed by SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Date: 2026.09.19 16:34:53 +0530 5 WP-11991-26.DOC was invited to an acknowledgment of service of notice to the respondents overleaf the notice (Exh. B). It was submitted that, the petitioners who were Respondents in the said proceedings, did not receive the notice. 4. Mr. Shinde further submitted that, the spot inspection of the disputed property was carried out in breach of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act, 1906. 5. This Court has perused the spot inspection report and the copy of rough sketch annexed thereto. The authorities have clearly recorded that, an impediment was caused in the access of the respondents by erecting a barbed wire fencing. Both the existence of the access and impediment thereto by erecting barbed wire fencing have been consistently found by the Authorities below. In the backdrop of such concurrent findings, this Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction, does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with such order. 6. In the event the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned action, the petitioners have the remedy of instituting a substantive suit before the Civil Court. In case, such a suit is instituted, the Civil Court may determine the legality and validity of the impugned action and order of Tahsildar without being influenced by this order. SAINATH, PA 2/3 5 WP-11991-26.DOC 7. Subject to aforesaid clarification, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA 3/3