Advocates:
['AMBETKAR ARVIND G', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'NARWADE NARAYAN B', 'GP', 'NARWADE N B']

955.WP.7145.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.7145 OF 2016

Indubai w/o Haribhau Ghule,

Age : 61 years, Occ: Agri.,

R/o. Atharewasti, Rupewadi,

Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar.

...

PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The States of Maharashtra

through its District Collector,

Ahmednagar.

2.

The Sub Divisional Officer,

Pathardi Division, Pathardi,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

3.

The Tahsildar,

Pathardi, Tq. Pathardi,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

4.

Sarjerao s/o. Gangadhar Solat,

Age : Major, Occu: Agri,

5.

Balasaheb s/o. Muktaji Athare

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

6.

Shivaji s/o. Kanifnath Athare,

Age : Major, Occ: Agri.,

7.

Vijaya Nilkanth Mali,

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

8.

Balasaheb s/o. Bhausaheb Chobhare

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

9.

Baban s/o. Bhausaheb Chobhare,

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

10. Bahirnath s/o. Nivrutti Kapase,

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

11. Jalindar s/o. Haribhau Kapase,

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

12. Changdeo s/o. Natha Bhalke,

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

Resp. Nos. 4 to 12 are R/o. Rupewadi,

Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar

… RESPONDENTS

(Resp. Nos. 4 to 12

Org. Plaintiffs)

1/10

955.WP.7145.16.odt

…

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Ajay T. Kanawade

AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. P.N. Kutti

Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 12 : Mr. Narayan B. Narwade

...

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.10763 OF 2015

1.

Kanifnath S/o. Gangadhar Sawashe,

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

R/o. Rupewadi, Tq. Pathardi,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

2.

Karbhari S/o. Gangadhar Sawashe

Age : Major, Occ: Agri

R/o. Rupewadi, Tq. Pathardi,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

3.

Laxman S/o. Nana Ghule

Age : Major, Occ: Agri

R/o. Rupewadi, Tq. Pathardi,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

4.

Haribhau S/o Khandu Ghule

Age : Major, Occ: Agri

R/o. Rupewadi, Tq. Pathardi,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

… PETITIONERS

(Org. Defendants)

VERSUS

1.

The States of Maharashtra

through its District Collector,

Ahmednagar.

2.

The Sub Divisional Officer,

Pathardi Division, Pathardi,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

3.

The Tahsildar,

Pathardi, Tq. Pathardi,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

4.

Sarjerao s/o. Gangadhar Solat,

Age : Major, Occu: Agri,

5.

Balasaheb s/o. Muktaji Athare

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

6.

Shivaji s/o. Kanifnath Athare,

Age : Major, Occ: Agri.,

7.

Vijaya Nilkanth Mali,

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

2/10

955.WP.7145.16.odt

8.

Balasaheb s/o. Bhausaheb Chobhare

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

9.

Baban s/o. Bhausaheb Chobhare,

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

10. Bahirnath s/o. Nivrutti Kapase,

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

11. Jalindar s/o. Haribhau Kapase,

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

12. Changdeo s/o. Natha Bhalke,

Age : Major, Occu: Agri.,

Resp. Nos. 4 to 12 are R/o. Rupewadi,

Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar

… RESPONDENTS

(Org. Plaintiffs)

…

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar

AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. P.N. Kutti

Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 12 : Mr. Narayan B. Narwade

...

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE

: 02.09.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the

consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of

admission.

2.

The petitioners are impugning the judgment and order passed

by the learned Mamlatdar in a suit initiated by the contesting respondents

under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 (herein after the

Act) and the judgment and order passed by the learned SDO whereby he

dismissed the Revision preferred by the petitioners under Section 23(2) of

the Act.

3.

The facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are to the effect that

3/10

955.WP.7145.16.odt

initially some villagers and members of the Grampanchayat filed a

proceeding which was registered as Rasta Case No.71/2014 on 05.11.2014

asserting that the disputed way has been in existence but was being

obstructed by the petitioners in W.P. No.10763/2015. A Panchanama was

conducted on 20.11.2014 mentioning that there were no signs of existence

of any way at the disputed site. It appears that another Panchanama was

con