Disposed¶20

Ankush Parasram Kaldate v. Gajanan Kamlakar Rohinkar and Others

Bombay HC12 Nov 2025WP/13455/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; Writ Petition No. 13455 of 2025; Ankush Parasram Kaldate v. Gajanan Kamlakar Rohinkar and Others; decided 12.11.2025 by Arun R. Pedneker, J.; Mamlatdar's Courts Act, Sections 5 and 22; Tahsildar, Mantha direction to open road across Gat Nos. 17 and 16; dispute over correct implementation of Tahsildar's order; Mamlatdar's order dated 18.3.2023 upheld without interference; overriding effect of civil court orders under Section 22; liberty to file civil suit; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the Mamlatdar's order dated 18.3.2023; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate civil suit before the civil court. ¶20

Ankush Parasram Kaldate Vs Gajanan Kamlakar Rohinkar and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No interference with the Mamlatdar's order dated 18.3.2023; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate civil suit before the civil court.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should interfere with the Mamlatdar's order dated 18.3.2023 observing that the Tahsildar's order was correctly implemented and that the petitioner was erroneously interpreting the order of Mamlatdar. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

This Court would not interfere with the observation made by the Mamlatdar (order dated 18.3.2023) that the order is correctly implemented and that the petitioner is erroneously interpreting the order of Mamlatdar.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate civil suit before the civil court.

¶19

Key takeaways

Section 22 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act provides that orders passed by the civil court qua the same subject matter have overriding effect over the orders passed by the Mamlatdar or the Revisional Authority under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition disposed of. The petitioner had earlier obtained a direction from the Tahsildar, Mantha, in an application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, to open a road for Survey Nos. १५/उ, १५/ए, १५/ए, १५/ओ and १५/उ from the bandh of Gat Nos. 17 and 16, with a further direction to respondent nos.1 to 5 not to disturb his crops; the earlier writ petition (W.P. No. 11853/2022) was disposed of on 10.01.2023 on the submission that the order stood implemented in letter and spirit on 11.11.2022. On the petitioner's subsequent application seeking correct implementation, the Mamlatdar held by order dated 18.3.2023 that the order was correctly implemented and that the petitioner was erroneously interpreting the order. The High Court declined to interfere with that observation and, noting that Section 22 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act gives orders of the civil court on the same subject matter overriding effect over orders of the Mamlatdar or the Revisional Authority, reserved liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate civil suit before the civil court.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:31153

¶2

WP 13455/25

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

923 WRIT PETITION NO. 13455 OF 2025

¶6

ANKUSH PARASRAM KALDATE

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

GAJANAN KAMLAKAR ROHINKAR AND OTHERS

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jadhav Kailas B AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.K. Shirse

¶10

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Dated : November 12, 2025

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter has chequered history. The orders passed by the authorities were challenged before this Court at earlier point of time. While disposing of the Writ Petition No. 11853/2022 on 10.01.2023, this Court has observed in para 1 and 2 as under :-

¶13

“1] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction was issued by the Tahsildar, Mantha to the petitioner in an application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act to open the road for Survey No. १५/उ, १५/ए, १५/ए, १५/ओ and १५/उ from the bandh of Gat Nos. 17 and 16 and the Tahsildar also further directed the respondent nos.1 to 5 not to disturb the crops of the petitioner. Due to the direction of the learned Tahsildar, the petitioner is not aggrieved, accordingly, nothing survives in this matter.

¶14

2] The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the order passed by the Tahsildar is implemented in letter and spirit on 11.11.2022.”

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty was

¶16

WP 13455/25

¶17

¶18

granted to the petitioner to apply again to the Mamlatdar if the order is not correctly implemented. As such the petitioner has moved an application before Mamlatdar seeking correct implementation of the order. Mamlatdar by order dated 18.3.2023 has observed that the order is correctly implemented and the petitioner is erroneously interpreting the order of Mamlatdar.

¶19

Considering the same, this Court would not interfere with the observation made by the Mamlatdar. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate civil suit before the civil court. Section 22 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act provides that the orders passed by the civil court qua the same subject matter would have over riding effect over the orders passed by the Mamlatdar or the Revisional Authority under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act.

¶20

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

ssc/

Ankush Parasram Kaldate v. Gajanan Kamlakar Rohinkar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush Parasram Kaldate v. Gajanan Kamlakar Rohinkar 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

Umakant Gurunath Deshmukh Vs the Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Sushilabai Gopinath Narode and Ors. Vs Nababai Gopinath Narode (Died) Balasaheb Gopinath Narode and Ors.

Mukund Vedu Baviskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

National Highways Authority of India Piu Jalgaon vs Chandrakant Govinda Dutte And Another

Metalyst Forgings Limited through Its Authorised Representative vs Sanjay Ambadas Kulkarni

Metalyst Forgings Limited through Its Authorised Representative vs Sanjay Ambadas Kulkarni