Allowed¶25

Kusum Laxman Kusalkar through Gpa Holder Gangaram Laxman Kusalkar v. the Sub Divisional Officer Ahmednagar and Others

Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 – Section 5

Bombay HC15 Dec 2025/1656/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kusum Laxman Kusalkar v. Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar; High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench; Writ Petition No. 1656 of 2023; Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.; decided 15.12.2025; Section 5, Mamlatdar's Courts Act 1906; rasta case; obstruction to existing pathway; Gat No. 84/1; panchanama; revisional order quashed for ignoring panchanama and want of reasons; Tahsildar order confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed: the order dated 04.01.2023 of the Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmadnagar in RTS Revision No. 155 of 2022 is quashed, and the order dated 21.03.2022 of the Tahsildar, Newasa in Rasta Case No. 47 of 2021 is confirmed. ¶25

Kusum Laxman Kusalkar through Gpa Holder Gangaram Laxman Kusalkar Vs the Sub Divisional Officer Ahmednagar and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether an existing road through Gat No. 84/1 was obstructed/blocked by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, entitling the petitioner to relief under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The panchanama at page 19 of the petition reveals that there was a road in existence through Gat No. 84/1 and that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 blocked it from both sides by digging pits.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Tahsildar allowed the petitioner's application on the basis of the findings recorded in the panchanama.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar reversed the Tahsildar's findings without considering the panchanama and without recording any findings as to how he reached the conclusion of allowing the revision.ratio¶20
The main object of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 is to grant immediate relief to agriculturists whose existing pathway is blocked; on that basis the court was inclined to allow the petition and set aside the Sub Divisional Officer's order.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 — Section 5 — obstruction to existing way (Rasta Case No. 47 of 2021). Tahsildar, Newasa allowed the petitioner's application after spot inspection, relying on a panchanama showing an existing road through Gat No. 84/1 blocked from both sides by digging pits by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar, in RTS Revision No. 155 of 2022 (order dated 04.01.2023), reversed the Tahsildar without considering the panchanama and without recording reasons. The Court held the object of the Act is immediate relief to agriculturists whose existing pathway is blocked; writ petition allowed, SDO's order quashed and Tahsildar's order dated 21.03.2022 confirmed.

¶1

¶2

120wp1656.23

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

120 WRIT PETITION NO. 1656 OF 2023

¶5

KUSUM LAXMAN KUSALKAR THROUGH GPA HOLDER GANGARAM LAXMAN KUSALKAR

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham S. Pawar h/f Mr. Rahul R.

¶9

Karpe

¶10

AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State : Mr. V.S.Badakh Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Ms. Palve Ghule Renuka B.

¶11

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 15.12.2025

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

¶14

By way of present petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmadnagar in RTS Revision No. 155 of 2022, whereby, the revision petition filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 came to be allowed thereby setting aside order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Tahsildar, Newasa in Rasta Case No. 47 of 2021 under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 (for short “the Act”).

¶15

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the road was in existence and obstruction was caused to it, therefore, an application came to be filed by petitioner under Section 5 of the Act before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar, after conducting the spot inspection

¶16

¶17

120wp1656.23

¶18

held that the road was in existence and obstruction was caused to it and therefore, application filed by the petitioner came to be allowed. Aggrieved by the said order respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed Revision Application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar who allowed the Revision on vague grounds without stating any reasons and therefore, he prays to set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar.

¶19

Per Contra, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the Sub Divisional Officer has considered the matter on merits and some photographs were also placed before the Sub Divisional Officer based on which he reversed the finding of Tahsildar. She submits that no road was in existence through Gat No. 84/1 and this fact has also been observed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar and therefore she supports the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer.

¶20

I have gone through the order passed by the Tahsildar, Newasa and the Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar. I have also perused panchanama which is at page No. 19 of this petition. The panchanama reveals that there was road in existence through Gat No. 84/1 and it was blocked from both sides by digging pits by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The Tahsildar has allowed the application filed by the petitioner on the basis of findings given in the panchanama. Whereas, the Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar has reversed the findings given by the Tahsildar without considering the panchanama and he has not given any findings regarding how he came to the conclusion of allowing the Revision filed by

¶21

¶22

120wp1656.23

¶23

the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶24

The main object of the Act is to grant immediate relief to the agriculturists whose existing path way is blocked. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the present petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar.

¶25

In view thereof, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmadnagar in RTS Revision No. 155 of 2022 is quashed. The order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Tahsildar, Newasa in Rasta Case No. 47 of 2021 is confirmed.

¶26

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

¶27

mahajansb/

Kusum Laxman Kusalkar through Gpa Holder Gangaram Laxman Kusalkar v. the Sub Divisional Officer Ahmednagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kusum Laxman Kusalkar through Gpa Holder Gangaram Laxman Kusalkar v. the Sub Divisional Officer Ahmednagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meenabai Ankush Sonawane Vs the District Collector and Others

Mahesh Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. through Dinesh Vaijnath Gujar Vs Ganesh Ramdas Gandule and Others

Nana Mango Dhangar Vs Jawahar Shetkari Sootgirani Ltd. and Others

Raman Bhagwandas Patel and Another Vs Sindhubai Murlidhar Kalaskar and Others

Shantabai Rambaba Bharti Vs Gangadhar Atmaram Jahdav Shinde Patil and Another

Balaji Dnayneshwar Shinde Vs Sub Divisional Officer Pathri and Others