Disposed¶17

Baburao S/O Shamrao Markad v. Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad, Yavatmal and Others

Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 – Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9

Bombay HC14 Oct 2025WP/3348/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench writ petition (3348/2025, Anil L. Pansare J., order dt. 27-06-2025): challenge to Mamlatdar's order under Mamlatdar's Courts Act 1906 (Sections 6-9) and SDO's dismissal of revision; alleged denial of hearing and breach of mandatory procedure; earlier remand by SDO disregarded in second round; ad-interim stay of both impugned orders granted; notice returnable 10/7/2025; A.G.P. for State respondents; service by speed post; Practice Note No. 14 Clause (5) compliance.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim stay of the impugned orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Mamlatdar; notice issued returnable on 10/7/2025; matter pending adjudication. ¶17

Baburao S/O Shamrao Markad vs Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad, Yavatmal and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Ad-interim stay of the impugned orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Mamlatdar; notice issued returnable on 10/7/2025; matter pending adjudication.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Mamlatdar proceeded with the matter and allowed the application directing the petitioner (original non-applicant) to remove the impediment without complying with the mandatory procedure under Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. +1 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Ad-interim stay granted to the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and also to the Mamlatdar's order, in the meantime.

¶17

Key takeaways

Notice issued to the respondents, returnable on 10/7/2025.ratio¶14
The learned A.G.P. waived notice for respondent nos. 1 and 2.ratio¶15
Petitioner directed to serve the respondents through speed post in addition to the usual mode and to file affidavit of service.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 - Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 - Writ Petition No. 3348 of 2025 (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Anil L. Pansare J.) filed by the original non-applicant in a Mamlatdar's Court proceeding, challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad dismissing his revision against the Mamlatdar's direction to remove an impediment; contention that the Mamlatdar acted without complying with the mandatory procedure under Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the 1906 Act and without giving opportunity of hearing, and that although the earlier round had been remanded by the SDO on that very ground, the Mamlatdar repeated the error in the second round and the SDO nonetheless dismissed the revision. Court issued notice returnable on 10/7/2025; A.G.P. waived notice for respondent nos. 1 and 2; ad-interim stay granted to the impugned orders of the SDO and the Mamlatdar; petitioner directed to serve respondents by speed post, file affidavit of service, and comply with Practice Note No. 14, Clause (5) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. Interim order only; no merits adjudicated.

¶1

¶2

9-WP-3348-2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3348 OF 2025

¶5

(Baburao s/o Shamrao Markad Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal & Ors.)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

¶7

and Registrar's Orders.

¶8

Mr. K.S. Narwade, Counsel for the petitioner. Ms M.S. Naik, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2/State.

¶9

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J. JUNE 27, 2025

¶10

The argument is that, the Mamlatdar has, without complying with the procedure, as laid down under Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (for short “Act of 1906”), proceeded with the matter and allowed the application directing the petitioner – original non-applicant to remove the impediment. The order is said to have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶11

2] Another argument is that, in earlier round of litigation, similar such order was passed, which came to be challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who remanded the matter back on the count that mandatory procedure, as laid down under the provisions of the Act of 1906, was not followed. Despite such status, in second round of litigation, the Mamlatdar committed similar mistake, however, when the revision was filed, the SubDivisional Officer, knowing fully well that the provisions of the Act of 1906 were not followed, has dismissed the same.

¶12

¶13

9-WP-3348-2025

¶14

3] Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 10/7/2025.

¶15

4] The learned A.G.P. waives notice for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶16

5] In addition to usual mode, the petitioner shall serve the respondents through speed post, and file affidavit of service.

¶17

6] In the meantime, there shall be stay to the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer so also the Mamlatdar.

¶18

7] The petitioner shall comply with practice note no. 14 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, particularly, Clause (5) thereof.

¶19

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)

¶20

Sumit

¶21

Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 27/06/2025 18:28:31

Baburao S/O Shamrao Markad v. Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad, Yavatmal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburao S/O Shamrao Markad v. Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad, Yavatmal 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

Khemchand Bherumal Bajaj Dharamshala and Hospital Trust, Thr. Managing Trustee, Dr. G. K. Bajaj vs Municipal Corporation, Amravati, Thr. Its Commissioner and Others

Sagar Kishor Admane vs Smt. Mamta W/O. Siddharth Bodale and Others

Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Matsyavyaysay Shakari Sanstha Maryadit, Thr. President Ravi K. Gawai vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Dept. of Agri. Animal Husb. Dairy Devpt. and Fisheries, Mumbai and Ors.

Champalal S/O. Bansilal Parate (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. and Others vs Vijaykumar S/O. Bhaiyyalal Parate and Others

Sau. Karuna Vilas Ingle vs Additional Commissioner, Amravati Divisiona, Amravati and Others

Sarita W/O Rajesh Pathre and Others vs Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others