JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 in Rasta Case No.13 of 2018, and the order dated 28/06/2022 passed by the respondent No.4-The Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrirampur Division, Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar, in Revision No.176 of 2021 allowing the Rasta Case filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the petition can be summarized as under :-

The petitioners and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are adjacent land holders. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed a Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 2016 on 07/01/2016 against the said respondents for the following reliefs :-

Image

^^oknhps nkok feydr x-ua 203 e/;s 'ksrtfeuhph esgur e'kkxr dj.ksps dkeh] fidysyk 'ksreky ckgsj dkढ.;klkBh x-ua 204P;k mŸkj nf{k.ksps cka/kks dkgh {ks=kP;k iVVhrqu vlysY;k jLR;kus tk.ks ;s.ksl gjdr vMFkys izfroknh ua-1 rs 5 ;kauh oknhuk d: u;s vlk fujarj rkdhn eukbZ gqdwe iz- oknhfo:) nsookok-^^

English translation reads as under :-

“Order of permanent injunction be passed against the defendant Nos.1 to 5 for not obstructing the Plaintiffs from cultivating the agricultural land in the Gut No.203, the suit property and using the way situated in the strip made of some of the area alongside of the North to South bandh of the Gut No.204 for to and for bringing the agricultural produce from the said land.”

The plaintiff/ respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 2016, before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahuri against the petitioners for claiming injunction from obstructing use of access road over land Gut No.204 belonging to the petitioners. In the said suit, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 prayed for appointment of Court Commissioner which was allowed and the Court Commissioner carried out spot inspection of the road access on Gut No.204 on 03/09/2017 and submitted his report on 15/09/2017. The report given by the Court commissioner was adverse to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Court Commissioner had given a report along with a map indicating that there is a separate access to the respondents and there was no access to the respondents No.1 and 2 land from the petitioners land.

4. Meanwhile, the respondents No.1 and 2 on 09/12/2018 filed an application before the Mamlatdar’s Court under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act for removal of obstruction on the above land Gut No.204 and restoring the access of the said respondents to the said gut number being Rasta Case No.13 of 2018. There was an inquiry initiated under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act.

5. The respondents withdrew the Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 2016 on 20/02/2020. Thereafter, the Rasta Case was allowed by the Mamlatdar after conducting inquiry and the same was upheld by the Revisional Authority respondent No.4-the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrirampur Division, Shrirampur Dist.Ahmednagar.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that once a suit is filed for injunction from obstruction of the respondents access, the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar Court under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act is excluded under Section 26 (2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, and no proceeding under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act can be initiated for removal of obstruction on the same pathway/road.

7. Per contra, it is the contention of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the cause of action for filing of the suit and the application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, are different. He relies upon the cause of action stipulated in the plaint as well as the application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. The cause of action is at paragraph No.7 of the Rasta Case No.13 of 2018, it is as under :-

^^7- 15 tqyS 2018 e/;s vtZnkjkauh R;kaps feydrhr lsk;kfcu o eD;kps fid dsysuarj lqekjs 20 vkWxLV 2018 jksth lnjP;k fidkl dksyi.kh dkeh vkmrQkVk us.;kl lkeusokysuh eTtko dsyk o frFks vkLrhRokr vlysyk jLrk eksMw