Dismissed¶17

Ramchandra Damodar Ahire v. the Tahsildar and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2026CRA/316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Supervisory jurisdiction; Article 227; Civil Revision Application; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; Mamlatdar's Courts Act Section 5; temporary injunction; RCS No. 880/2023; Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 55/2023; District Judge-3 Malegaon; right of way; road on bank of rivulet (nala); Gat No. 03; spot inspection panchnama; village map; obstruction of access; concurrent prima facie findings; no re-appreciation of evidence; Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1586; Ajay Singh v. Khacheru (2025) 3 SCC 266; Rule discharged; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the applicant; Rule discharged with no costs; the learned Civil Judge requested to hear and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. ¶17

Ramchandra Damodar Ahire vs the Tahsildar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the applicant; Rule discharged with no costs; the learned Civil Judge requested to hear and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders of the Courts below warrant interference in exercise of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction, whose remit is confined to ensuring subordinate courts act within the bounds of law and does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the Court does not re-appreciate, re-weigh or review the evidence before the Courts below; the supervisory jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction, its remit being whether courts and tribunals acted within the bounds of law or the impugned orders are perverse.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The material on record — the Mamlatdar's spot inspection, map, recorded statements, spot inspection panchnama and village map — indicates the existence of the road on the bank of the rivulet (nala) and the impediment caused by the applicant; the panchnama records that the road exists beyond the applicant's field and that the nala in the applicant's field was filled, blocking the access.

¶14

Key takeaways

The applicant ought to have filed a writ petition instead of a Revision Application to assail the impugned order; nonetheless, since the parties had completed pleadings, the Court proceeded to determine the revision application on merits.obiter¶10
On the basis of that material, which prima facie shows the existence of the road and the impediment caused by the applicant, the Courts below recorded concurrent prima facie findings of fact that the road did exist and the applicant had caused obstruction thereto.ratio¶15
The findings of the Courts below being based on objective material, there is no justifiable reason in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction to interfere with the prima facie findings of fact and tentative inferences; the Civil Revision Application does not deserve to be entertained.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Application dismissed (N. J. Jamadar, J.; 14th January 2026). The applicant (Ramchandra Damodar Ahire) challenged the order of the learned Civil Judge, Malegaon rejecting his temporary injunction application (Exh. 5) in RCS No. 880/2023 and the order of the learned District Judge-3, Malegaon dismissing his Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 55/2023. Held, relying on Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1586) and Ajay Singh v. Khacheru ((2025) 3 SCC 266): supervisory jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate, and does not extend to re-appreciating, re-weighing or reviewing evidence before the courts below. The Mamlatdar, in a proceeding under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, had conducted a spot inspection; his map, the spot inspection panchnama and the village map indicated the existence of a road on the bank of the rivulet (nala) through Gat No. 03 and obstruction of the access by the applicant. On that objective material the Courts below had recorded concurrent prima facie findings of fact, affording no justifiable ground for interference. Rule discharged; no costs; the learned Civil Judge requested to hear and decide the suit expeditiously.

¶1

906 CRA 316-24.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 316 OF 2024

¶4

Ramchandra Damodar Ahire ..Applicant Versus Tahsildar And Ors …Respondents

¶5

Mr. Khushnood Akhtar i/by Shivaji Nirmale, for the Applicant. Mr. Sanjay P. Shinde, for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 19. Mr. D. J. Haldankar, AGP for Respondent – State.

¶6

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 14^th JANUARY 2026

¶7

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶8

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the

¶9

consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

¶10

Digitally signed ARUNRAMCHANDRASANKPAL by ARUNRAMCHANDRASANKPALDate: 2026.01.16 21:17:51 +0530

¶11

This Civil Revision Application is directed against a judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge-3, Malegaon in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 55/2023, whereby an appeal preferred by the applicant against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge on an application for temporary injunction (Exh. 5) in RCS No. 880/2023, came to be dismissed.

¶12

The Respondents/original defendants had instituted a

¶13

proceeding under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. By

¶14

1/7

¶15

SAINATH

¶16

906 CRA 316-24.DOC

¶17

an order dated 28^th May, 2022, the Mamlatdar was persuaded to allow the said application and direct the removal of the impediment caused to the access through the road which was running through Gat No. 03 on the bank of a rivulet (nala).

¶18

Being aggrieved, the applicant had initially preferred a revision application before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Subsequently, the said revision application was withdrawn and the applicant instituted a suit before the Civil Court at Malegaon.

¶19

In the said Civil Suit no. 880/2023, the applicant preferred an application for temporary injunction. By an order dated 10^th November, 2023, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to reject the application.

¶20

The applicant carried the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge was persuaded to dismiss the appeal observing inter alia that, there was material to show the existence of the road and obstruction caused by the applicant.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that, the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned District Judge

¶22

2/7

¶23

SAINATH

¶24

906 CRA 316-24.DOC

¶25

committed an error in not appreciating the case of the applicant, and have proceeded only on the basis of the observations made by the Mamlatdar in the proceeding under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. It was submitted that, the respondents have an alternate access to their fields. By taking an undue advantage of the order passed by the Mamlatdar, a new road is sought to be created through the land of the applicant. In the event the respondents are not restrained from creating a new road, during the pendency of the suit, in which the legality and propriety of the proceedings before, and the order passed by, the Mamlatdar is yet to be determined, the applicant would suffer an irreparable loss.

¶26

In opposition to this, the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that, the material on record squarely establishes the fact that, the road did exist and the applicant caused an impediment in the access through the said road. Taking the Court through the orders passed by the Mamlatdar, the learned Civil Judge and the learned District Judge, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that, none of the impugned orders warrants any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.

¶27

3/7

¶28

SAINATH

¶29

906 CRA 316-24.DOC

¶30

At the outset, it is necessary to note that, the applicant ought to have filed a writ petition instead of a Revision Application to assail the impugned order. Nonetheless, since the parties have completed the pleadings, this Court considered it appropriate to proceed with the determination of the revision application on merits.

¶31

In exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction, this Court is not expected to re-appreciate, re-weigh and review the evidence/material before the Courts below. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction. Whether the Courts and the Tribunals have exercised the jurisdiction within the bounds of the law or the impugned orders are perverse, are the matters which fall within the remit of the supervisory jurisdiction.

¶32

A profitable reference in this context can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr.¹ , and Ajay Singh Vs. Khacheru & Ors² .

¶33

2 (2025) 3 SCC 266

¶34

1 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1586

¶35

4/7

¶36

SAINATH

¶37

906 CRA 316-24.DOC

¶38

In the case of Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr. , (supra) the Supreme Court has expounded the nature and proceeding as under:-

¶39

“85. The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, however, supervisory and not appellate. It is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence must be exercised sparingly, to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority. When a Tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction, the High Court does not interfere in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction unless there is grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law. Jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised “ in the cloak of an appeal in disguise”.

¶40

In exercise of its extraordinary power of superintendence and/or judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts restrict interference to cases of patent error of law which go to the root of the decision; perversity; arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness; violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and usurpation of powers. The High Court does not re-assess or reanalyse the evidence and/or materials on record. Whether the High Court would exercise its writ jurisdiction to test a decision of the Rent Control Tribunal would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be converted into an alternative appellate forum, just because there is no other provision of appeal in the eye of the law.” …...

¶41

13. In the case of Ajay Singh Vs. Khacheru & Ors. (supra), the

¶42

limits the exercise of writ jurisdiction were expounded as under:

¶43

“38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it

¶44

5/7

¶45

SAINATH

¶46

906 CRA 316-24.DOC

¶47

exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power if supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law”.

¶48

In the case at hand, the material on record indicates that, the Mamlatdar in the wake of a dispute having been raised under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, has conducted a spot inspection and recorded the statements of the parties and adjoining land holders. In the map, which was prepared by the Mamlatdar, during the course of the spot inspection, the existence of the road on the bank of the rivulet (nala) has been clearly shown. The impediment caused by the applicant to the said access has also been recorded. The spot inspection panchnama categorically records that, the said road on the rivulet (nala) exists beyond the field of the applicant and in the field of the applicant, the said rivulet (nala) was filled and thereby the access was blocked. The existence of the said road is also indicated in the village map.

¶49

6/7

¶50

SAINATH

¶51

906 CRA 316-24.DOC

¶52

On the basis of the aforesaid material which prima facie shows the existence of the road as well as the impediment caused by the applicant, the Courts below have recorded concurrent, prima facie, findings of facts that, the road did exist and applicant had caused obstruction thereto.

¶53

The aforesaid findings recorded by the Courts below appear to be based on objective material. Therefore, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the aforesaid prima facie findings of facts and tentative inferences drawn by the Courts below. Thus, the Civil Revision Application does not deserve to be entertained.

¶54