Uttam Zamaji Bhoyar & Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The present petition is filed challenging and praying for setting aside the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hinganghat, District – Wardha, in R.A.No.76/MCA-23/2021-22, Mouza - Chichghat (Ladki), Tq. Hinganghat as also the order dated 28.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 i.e. the Joint Mamlatdar/Naib Tahsildar, Dist. Wardha in R.C. No.10/MCA-05/2020-21, Mouza - Chichghat (Ladki), Tq. Hinganghat.

The facts as can be seen in the petition are as under :

That the respondent No.4 herein made an application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, in respect of his grievance to the third respondent. In the enquiry, which ensued the Tahsildar passed an order on 28.12.2020, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent No.4 and directing the petitioners herein to remove the obstruction within 15 days thereof.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein filed a revision under Section 23 of the said Act i.e. Mamlatdars’ Courts Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hinganghat. Initially, the said authority rejected the revision vide order dated 23.02.2023. However, in a writ petition filed by the present petitioners bearing Writ Petition No.5181/2023, this Court relegated the matter to the Sub-Divisional authority i.e. the Revisional Authority for deciding it afresh.

The matter was heard afresh in pursuance to the remand and vide order dated 16.10.2025, the revisional authority has again rejected the revision filed by the petitioners herein. Both these orders are challenged in the present petition.

I have heard Shri Bhambhurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners as also Mr. Haq, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Mrs. Naik, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.

It is the primary contention of the Mr. Bhambhurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners that the authorities below have not granted any opportunity to the petitioners to examine their witnesses or to put-forth their claim in support of their contentions. He submits that the orders are unsustainable in law on this ground alone.

In addition to this, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the entire exercise has been done without making a spot inspection and without considering the facts brought to the notice of the authorities. He further submits that the actual position of the site has not been properly considered by the authorities below which has rendered the order in correcting law. He states that the procedure as contemplated under Section 14 and 15 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, has not been followed and therefore, the order is unsubstantial in law.

Per contra, Mr. Haq, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, the contesting respondent and the original complainant supports the impugned order. By taking me through the impugned order, he submits that as far as violation of mandatory procedure under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, is considered, it is his submission that such a request was never made before the authorities below. The same is the case with the issue of limitation as the same is being raised for the first time before this Court. He points me out the entire order sheet of the Tahsildar to submit that neither such objection of breach of procedure of Section 14 and 15 was ever made.

I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties and with the able assistance, gone through the record, Section 14 and 15 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, read as under :

As can be seen from the meaningful reading of the said Sections a discretion has been conferred on the Mamlatdar to examine any witness as are required by the parties. It is thus, clear that it is the party i.e. the applicant or the non-applicant, who has to request the Tahsildar to seek a direction to examine such witnesses in respect of support of their contentions. Nothing of this sought has been done in the present matter. Furthermore, even though, a ground of limitation has been raised, the fact remains that the same has been raised for the first time in this Court.

Mr. Bhambhurkar, tries to persuade me that the issue of limitation is a pure question of law but I am hardly impressed by this submission since it is a settled principal of law that looking at the factual contest, the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. Even if it is assumed that the issue of limitation goes to the root of the matter, the fact remains that nothing of such sought was pleaded nor it was pointed out to any authorities below even after a remand. The contention in that regard, therefore, cannot be accepted.

As far as the factual aspect is concerned, it has come on record that a spot inspection was done in the presence of all the parties concerned, wherein it was specifically observed that the petitioners herein has created an obstruction and closed the road. On the basis of this spot inspection report (which is not disputed), the Tahsildar as well as the Revisional Authority has passed a reasoned order.

In my considered opinion, there is no perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders. The petition is, therefore, liable to be rejected and it is rejected.

Rule discharged.