Ramprasad Narayan Agrawal And ANR v. The Sub Divisional Officer Dhule And ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:18123 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4290 OF 2026 RAMPRASAD NARAYAN AGRAWAL AND ANR

VERSUS

THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER DHULE AND ORS ...

Mr. D. P. Palodkar h/f Mr. Shantanu Prabhakar Rai, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Ms. R. R. Tandale, AGP for Respondents-State. ...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATED : 21st APRIL, 2026.

P.C.:- 1.

The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated 13.03.2026 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Dhule in RTS Revision Application No.24/2026, which was arising out of Wahivat Case No.13/2025 filed before Tahsildar at Dhule. 2.

Mr. Palodkar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that respondent no.6 and 7 by independent application filed Wahivat Case No.28/2025 before Tahsildar, Dhule claiming injunction in respect of 6 meter wide cart way, which passes through Gut Nos.63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 78, 79 so also Gut No.62 i.e. owned by petitioners. They sought removal of alleged obstructions. The petitioners were not impleaded in said proceeding although their land would have been affected. Therefore, petitioners filed application for intervention in Wahivat Case No.28/2025. It was

(2) kept pending. The panchanama was conducted. The respondent no.7 unconditionally withdrawn his application by filing pursis. However, Tahsildar, Dhule proceeded to decide Wahivat Case No.28/2025 and granted injunction in respect of 6 meter wide cart way as claimed. The petitioners filed RTS Revision Application No.24/2026 before Sub Divisional Officer. However, finally Sub Divisional Officer dismissed Revision Application as infructuous holding that petitioners have no locus to challenge order as petitioners were not party to original proceeding. 3.

In this backdrop, Mr. Palodkar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that in connected RTS Revision Application No.22/2026, which was filed by other respondent against order passed in Wahivat Case No.28/2025 order of remand is passed and matter is relegated back to Tahsildar for reconsideration. 4.

In light of aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that if petitioners have reason to apprehend that order that would be passed by Tahsildar in Wahivat Case No.28 of 2025 is likely to affect their rights in land Gut No.62, it would be open for them to seek their impleadment in pending proceedings. The Tahsildar shall be under obligation to consider same in accordance with law, without being impeded by observations made by Sub-Divisional Officer in RTS Revision Application No.22/2026.

(3) 5.

With aforesaid observations, Writ Petition stands disposed of. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/April-2026