Kantilal Hari Hirde And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Collector Ahmednagar And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:18061 wp 8181.23.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 53 WRIT PETITION NO. 8181 OF 2023 Kantilal Hari Hirde And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Collector Ahmednagar And Others ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms M.V. Narwade h/f Mr. V.P. Narwade AGP for Respondents: Mr. P D Patil Advocate for Respondents 4-7 : Mr. R R. Karpe CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

Dated : July 10, 2025 PER COURT :- 1.

The petitioners impugns the order passed under section 5 (2) of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, which has been confirmed by the S.D.O. in revision.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the petitioners holds an agricultural land in gat no.4 whereas private respondents are holding their lands in gat nos.3/3 and 3/4. Petitioners filed an application before the learned Tahsildar under the provisions of Mamlatdar Courts Act for removal fo obstruction created by respondent in use of way which passes from land gat no.3/3 and 3/4, however, learned Tahsildar refused to entertain petitioners application on erroneous counts. She wound further submits that even the S.D.O. rejected revision application of petitioners without application of mind.

wp 8181.23.odt 3.

Per contra, Mr. Karpe, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 to 7 supports the impugned order. 4.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that petitioners have claimed existence of approach way which passes from midst of land of respondents. Learned Tahsildar has drawn a spot panchnama. However, existence of way, as claimed by the petitioners could not be noticed at the spot. The petitioners have not recorded any evidence in support of their contentions or to establish existence of way. The learned S.D.O. while rejecting revision filed by petitioners specifically observed that petitioners are in fact claiming a new approach road from lands of respondents, which cannot be allowed. 5.

In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the writ petition. Writ Petition stands rejected. ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ) Judge ...

AAA-