Dismissed

Shri. Jaisingh Wamanrao Pawar and Anr. v. Shri. Manikrao Sayajirao Kakade (Since Deceased through Lrs.) and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2024WP/4493/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging orders under the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906, directing removal of road obstructions. The court held that the orders were not erroneous, reiterated that such orders are subject to civil challenges, and affirmed that dismissal would not bar future civil remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no civil remedies were barred.

Shri. Jaisingh Wamanrao Pawar and Anr. Vs Shri. Manikrao… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

4-WP-4493-2017.docx

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4493 OF 2017

¶4

Shri Jaisingh Wamanrao Pawar and Another … Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Shri Manikrao Sayajirao Kakade … Respondents (since deceased through LRs) and Another

¶7

Mr. Surel S. Shah a/w. Mr. Ishaan Kapse for the Petitioners. Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶9

DATE : 11^th MARCH 2024

¶10

P.C.

¶11

This petition takes exception to orders passed under the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 (“the said Act”). By order dated 24^th January 2014 the learned Tahsildar allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the said Act and directed removal of obstructions on the 10 feet road as described in the operative part of the order. Perusal of the order indicates that the same is passed based on agreement dated 23^rd September 2005 signed by 22 villagers including

¶12

the petitioners. Learned Tahasildar has also relied upon a spot inspection report for passing the said order.

¶13

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2024.03.26 20:08:26 +0530

¶14

1/3

¶15

 4-WP-4493-2017.docx

¶16

Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioners preferred revision application under Section 23(2) of the said Act. The revision application is dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the original order of Tahsildar has been confirmed. The said order passed under Section 5 of the said Act is operative since 24^th January 2014.

¶17

Perusal of both the orders indicate that the petitioners remained absent during the hearing before the Tahsildar and it also appears that the agreement signed by the 22 villagers as well as the spot inspection report is not disputed by the petitioners.

¶18

I do not find any error or illegality in the reasons recorded by both authorities warranting any intervention by this court by exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Needless to clarify that orders passed under the Mamlatdar Courts Act are always subject to challenge in civil proceeding.

¶20

Hence in the event petitioners are aggrieved by the directions issued by the impugned orders, the petitioners always have a remedy to file appropriate civil proceeding for agitating their grievance and

¶21

2/3

¶22

4-WP-4493-2017.docx

¶23

dismissal of the present petition will not be an impediment to the petitioners to agitate their grievance raised in the petition.

¶24

Hence, for the reasons stated above, writ petition is dismissed.

¶25

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶26

3/3

Shri. Jaisingh Wamanrao Pawar and Anr. v. Shri. Manikrao Sayajirao Kakade (Since Deceased through Lrs.) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Jaisingh Wamanrao Pawar and Anr. v. Shri. Manikrao Sayajirao Kakade (Since Deceased through Lrs.) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sou. Poonam Pravin Pisat Vs Special Recovery Officer, the Goregaon Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd, through Administrator and Ors.

Om Estate Developers through Shri Milind T. Patil Vs District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sangli and Anr.

Shri. Gorakh Rangnath Bodare Vs the Joint Registrar Co. Operative Societies Dairy

Ms. Sunita Premnath Shinde Vs Mr. Tukaram Laxman Shinde and Ors.

Woolmark Services India Private Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Revenue and Forests and Ors.

Shri. Dadasaheb Babanrao Satav and Anr. Vs Shri. Vijay Harischandra Khaire and Ors.