Vilas Jagannath Jadhav and Ors. vs Ramchandra Shivaji Jadhav and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vilas Jagannath Jadhav and Ors. vs Ramchandra Shivaji Jadhav and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of without interfering with the impugned order; Tahsildar directed to hear and determine the Section 5 proceedings under the Mamalatdar's Court Act, 1906 within 2 months strictly in accordance with law, with all contentions of both parties kept expressly open, and clarified that the Tahsildar shall not be influenced by the observations and findings recorded in the impugned order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in revision proceedings (quashing the Tahsildar's order and directing rehearing of the Section 5 proceedings under the Mamalatdar's Court Act, 1906 afresh) calls for interference by the High Court in writ jurisdiction.

Court's answer

The impugned revisional order of the Sub Divisional Officer does not require any interference, primarily because it gives directions to hear the substantive Section 5 proceedings under the Mamalatdar's Court Act afresh.

Ratio / Principle

Keeping all contentions of both parties expressly open, the Tahsildar seized with hearing of the Section 5 proceedings under the Mamalatdar's Court Act was directed to hear and determine the same as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within a period of 2 months, strictly in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

It was clarified that while hearing the Section 5 proceedings, the Tahsildar shall not be influenced by any of the observations and findings recorded in the impugned order.ratio¶20
The Court declined to put its imprimatur on the merits, since doing so would undoubtedly affect the proceedings before the Mamalatdar's Court.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Milind N. Jadhav, J. — Writ Petition No.3499 of 2024, Vilas Jagannath Jadhav and Ors. v. Ramchandra Shivaji Jadhav and Ors. The petitioners challenged the revisional order dated 10.05.2023 of the Sub Divisional Officer, by which the previous order of the Tahsildar in the Section 5 proceedings under the Mamalatdar's Court Act, 1906 was quashed and set aside with a direction to rehear the proceedings afresh between the parties. Held: the impugned order did not require any interference, primarily because it gave directions to hear the substantive Section 5 proceedings afresh; the Court declined to put its imprimatur on the merits, as doing so would affect the proceedings before the Mamalatdar's Court. Keeping all contentions of both parties expressly open, the Tahsildar was directed to hear and determine the Section 5 proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any event within 2 months, strictly in accordance with law, and it was clarified that the Tahsildar shall not be influenced by any observations and findings recorded in the impugned order. Writ petition disposed of in the above terms.

28_WP_3499_2024.docx

Prasad Rajput

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.3499 OF 2024

Vilas Jagannath Jadhav and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Ramchandra Shivaji Jadhav and Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. Ajit Kenjale a/w Mr. Azharuddin Khan, Advocate for Petitioners.

Mr. Shriram Kulkarni a/w Mr. Pranjal Khatawkar, Advocates for Respondents.

Mr. Shahaji Shinde a/w Y.D. Patil, for Respondent No.4 State.

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JUNE 09, 2025

P. C.:

1. Heard Mr. Kenjale, learned Advocate for Petitioners, Mr.

Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Respondents and Mr. Shinde, learned AGP for Respondent – State.

Order impugned is the order passed in revision proceedings by the Sub Divisional Officer. By virtue of the said order dated 10.05.2023, previous order passed by the Tahsildar has been quashed and set aside with a direction to rehear the Section 5 proceedings filed under the Mamalatdar’s Court Act, 1906 afresh. In effect the Section 5 order has been quashed and set aside with a direction to rehear the same between the parties. I have perused the order dated 11.01.2024 appended at page No.64 of the writ petition and perused the reasons stated therein. In view of this order giving

1 of 2

28_WP_3499_2024.docx

imprimatur of this Court on merits will undoubtedly affect the proceedings before the Mamalatdar’s Court.

I have reasoned with both the learned Advocates appearing at the bar that the impugned order does not require any interference primarily in view of the fact that it has given directions to hear the substantive Section 5 proceedings under the Mamalatdar’s Court Act afresh.

Hence, keeping all contentions of both parties expressly open, the Tahsildar seized with hearing of the Section 5 proceedings under the Mamalatdar’s Court Act is directed to hear the same and determine the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of 2 months from today strictly in accordance with law.

With the above directions without interfering with the impugned order writ petition is disposed by clarifying that while hearing the Section 5 proceedings, the Tahsildar shall not be influenced by any of the observations and findings recorded in the impugned order.

Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

P.R. Rajput

2 of 2