Disposed¶18

Dault Madhv Bhakre and Others v. Bhaskar Waman Bhakre and Others

Bombay HC12 Dec 2025WP/13622/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP 13622/2025, High Court Bombay (Aurangabad Bench), Arun R. Pedneker J., 23-12-2025 - Dault Madhv Bhakre v. Bhaskar Waman Bhakre - concurrent Tahsildar Kopargaon / Deputy Collector Shirdi orders under S.5 Mamlatdar Courts Act and S.23 of the Act to remove obstruction on bandh; orders subject to S.22 Mamlatdar Courts Act; petition disposed, not entertained; liberty for civil-court proceedings and interim relief; conditional 3-week stay of implementation; no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court and seek interim relief (or apply for interim relief in pending civil proceedings); conditional three-week stay on implementation of the Mamlatdar Courts Act orders if such proceedings are filed and interim relief sought. ¶18

Dault Madhv Bhakre and Others vs Bhaskar Waman Bhakre and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the concurrent orders directing removal of the obstruction on the bandh should be entertained by this Court.

¶13

Court's answer

As the impugned orders are concurrent in nature, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Liberty granted to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court and seek interim relief, or, where civil proceedings are already initiated, to apply for interim relief in the pending civil proceedings.

¶13

Key takeaways

If the petitioner files appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court and seeks interim relief, implementation of the orders passed under the Mamlatdar Courts Act shall remain stayed for a period of three weeks from the date of this order.ratio¶17
The Civil Court shall decide the application for interim relief, if filed, on its own merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶17
Clarified that the interim protection granted herein is not on the merits of the matter, and the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 13622 of 2025 (High Court at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench; Arun R. Pedneker, J.; dated December 23, 2025). Dault Madhv Bhakre and others v. Bhaskar Waman Bhakre and others. The petition challenged concurrent orders of the Tahsildar, Kopargaon and the Deputy Collector, Shirdi, passed under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act and Section 23 of the Act (parent statute unnamed in the judgment), after spot inspection and spot panchanama, directing the petitioner to remove an obstruction on a bandh used by the respondent as a pathway; such orders are expressly made subject to interim or final orders of the competent Civil Court by Section 22 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act. Finding the orders concurrent in nature, the Court was not inclined to entertain the petition and disposed of it, granting the petitioner liberty to initiate (or pursue pending) civil-court proceedings and seek interim relief; in that event, implementation of the Mamlatdar Courts Act orders is to remain stayed for three weeks, with the Civil Court to decide any interim-relief application on its own merits and in accordance with law. The Court expressly clarified that the interim protection is not on the merits and that it expressed no opinion on the merits.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:37219

¶2

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

1 WRIT PETITION NO. 13622 OF 2025

¶4

Dault Madhv Bhakre And Others

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Bhaskar Waman Bhakre And Others

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ansari Asfia Nuzhat

¶8

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

¶9

Dated : December 23, 2025.

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

The concurrent orders have been passed by the Tahsildar, Kopargaon and the Deputy Collector, Shirdi, under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act and Section 23 of the Act, directing the petitioner to remove the obstruction on the bandh . The respondent has been using the said pathway, and the same was found to be obstructed.

¶12

The orders have been passed by the concerned authorities after conducting spot inspection and drawing a spot panchanama. The orders passed under the Mamlatdar Courts Act by the authorities are expressly made subject to interim or final order that may be passed by the competent Civil Court, by Section 22 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act.

¶13

Considering the fact that the orders impugned are concurrent in nature, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court, and seek interim relief, and if proceedings are already initiated, may apply for interim relief in the pending civil

Page 1 of 2

1 WP 13622-2025

proceedings.

In the event the petitioner files appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court and seeks interim relief, the implementation of the orders passed under the Mamlatdar Courts Act shall remain stayed for a period of three weeks from today. The Civil Court shall decide the application for interim relief, if filed, on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶18

It is clarified that the interim protection granted herein is not on the merits of the matter, and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. In view of the above the writ petition is disposed.

¶19

The parties shall act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶20

( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )

¶21

vj gawade/-.

¶22

Page 2 of 2

Dault Madhv Bhakre and Others v. Bhaskar Waman Bhakre and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dault Madhv Bhakre and Others v. Bhaskar Waman Bhakre 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Haribhau Lobhaji Vaidya Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Agriculture Produce Market Committee through Its Secretary Vs Tanaji Pramraj Gunjal Died Thr Lrs Meerabai Tanaji Gunjal and Others

Eknath Pandhari Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rambhau Sakharam Khodade Vs Alka Sitaram Khodade and Others

Shaikh Rashid Shaikh Hussain and Another Vs the Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer and Others

Jayprakash Sanganna Momle Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others