Vaishali Satish Kolte vs Sub-Divisional Officer And Others

Ajit B. Kadethankar, J

Not on Board. Taken on Board.

Respondents No. 4 to 9 along with Gangadhar Aaglave filed an application before the Tahsildar, Bhokardan under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 ("the Act of 1906") seeking a right of way through the land comprised in Gat No. 33 to 26 at village Dagadwadi Shivar. The said application was filed against the present respondents No. 12 to 16. It suffices to note that respondent No. 14 is the husband of the present applicant.

After due process, the said application was allowed by the Tahsildar vide an order dated 26.05.2025. The respondents therein preferred a revision application under Section 23(2) of the Act of 1906 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhokardan. After hearing the parties, the said revision was dismissed vide an order dated 20.03.2026.3.

Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that this petition is preferred challenging both of the aforementioned orders. He submits that although the applicant is the owner of the land in Gat No. 33 to 26, she was not made a party to either of the proceedings. He further submits that, as of today, there are large mango trees and certain structures standing on the way which is sought to be carved out pursuant to the orders passed under the Act of 1906. Coloured photographs of the site have been placed on record by the applicant to show the standing trees and structures. The applicant raises a two-fold objection. Firstly, that despite being the owner and possessor of Gat No. 33 through which the proposed way is being carved out, she was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the Tahsildar or the Sub-Divisional Officer. Secondly, considering the fully grown trees, the authorities ought not to carve out the way by cutting them down.

With the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Deshmukh seeks an injunction restraining the authorities from implementing the order passed by the Tahsildar on 26.05.2025 under Section 5(8) of the Act of 1906, which stands confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 23(2) of the said Act. However, there is nothing on record at this stage to establish that the applicant is the owner and possessor of the said portion of agricultural land comprised in Gat No. 33 to 26 at village Dagadwadi Shivar.

Prima facie, it is difficult to accept the contention of the applicant that she is the owner of the land in Gat No. 33 to 26 and was wrongly excluded from the original proceedings before the Tahsildar. So far as the second contention is concerned, it appears from a communication dated 26.05.2026 addressed by the Circle Officer, Danapur to the Tahsildar, Bhokardan that the order passed under the Act of 1906 could be implemented after obtaining necessary permission from the Forest Department to cut the trees. The said communication further clarifies that the way has already been cleared and the boundaries have been fixed, thereby throwing the way open for usage.

During the course of arguments, it was informed that the original plaintiffs have also initiated Regular Civil Suit No. 361 of 2024 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhokardan, against the present applicant. It is further submitted by Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the applicant that the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the Civil Court. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the rejection of the temporary injunction order was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred Appeal from Order No. 37 of 2026 before this Court.

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 01.07.2026.