1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

WRIT PETITION NO.8665 OF 2012.

1. Vishnu Sukhdev Ghanvat,

Age 57 years, Occ.Agril.,

2. Shashikala Vishnu Ghanvat,

Age 51 years, Occ.Agril.,

3. Namdeo Vishnu Ghanvat,

Age 31 years,Occ.Agril.,

4. Balu Vishnu Ghanvat,

Age 27 years, Occ.Agri.,

All R/o Najik Babhulgaon,

Tq.Shevgaon, Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners.

Versus

1. The Collector,

Ahmednagar.

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,

Ahmednagar.

3. The Tahsildar,

Shevgaon, Tq.Shevgaon,

Dist.Ahmednagar.

4. Laxman Bapurao Dhorkule,

Age 41 years, Occ.Agril.,

5. Ambadas Bapurao Dhorkule,

Age 46 years, Occ.Agril.,

6. Subhash Bapurao Dhorkule,

2

Age 56 years, Occ.Agril.,

7. Ram Bapurao Dhorkule,

Age 52 years, Occ.Agril.,

Respondent Nos.4 to 7

R/o Najik Babhulgaon,

Tq.Shevgaon, Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Respondents.

...

Mr.N.S.Jaju, advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr.J.K.Dale, advocate for the Respondent Nos.4

to 7.

Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the

State.

...

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

Date : 15.10.2012.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Heard.

2.

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With

the consent of the parties, the petition is taken

up for final hearing.

3.

The Respondent Nos.4 to 7 had filed

Vahiwat case U/s 5(2) of the Mamlatdars' Courts

Act, 1906. The same was allowed. Aggrieved

thereby, the petitioners filed Revision before

3

Respondent No.2. The said Revision is dismissed.

The petitioners have assailed the said judgment

in the present petition.

4.

Mr.Jaju, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the Tahsildar has passed

the order relying on the spot panchanama which is

conducted even prior to the issuance of notice to

the petitioners. No opportunity was given to

file say and the proceedings have been decided.

The Respondent No.2 also confirms the lapse on

the part of the Tahsildar to follow the procedure

but has dismissed the Revision on the count that

no alternate way is shown. The learned counsel

further contends that the judgment passed by the

Mamlatdar being in flagrant violation of the

principles of natural justice and the procedure

laid down under the said Act deserves to be set

aside.

5.

Mr.Dale, learned counsel for the

Respondent Nos.4 to 7 supports the order and

submits that the Tahsildar has considered the

factual position. Even till this date the

4

petitioners have not submitted any alternate way

available to the present Respondents. As the

petitioners have obstructed the way, the

Tahsildar has rightly passed the order.

6.

With the assistance of the learned

counsel, I have gone through the orders.

7.

It appears that on 24.6.2011, the

Respondents had filed an application U/s 5(2) of

the said Act. On 28.6.2011, the Tahsildar

conducted the spot panchanama. The notices to

the present petitioners were issued on 21.7.2011

and were served upon the petitioners on

23.7.2011.

Thereafter, on 9.8.2011, the

Tahsildar has decided the proceedings. The

provisions of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, deal

with the procedure to be followed by the

Mamlatdar

while

entertaining

the

said

proceedings. After the plaint is presented the

Mamlatdar is required to consider the said plaint

and if it is satisfied that the compliance is in

order then has to proceed further. Even an

opportunity is required to be given as per

5

Section 15 for examination of witnesses. The

whol