logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 BHC 2843 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
Case No : Writ Petition No. 3698 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANDESH S. DESHPANDE
Parties : Harishchandra & Others Versus Sudhakar Krushnarao Gohatre & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Sachin S. Deshpande, Advocate. For the Respondents: R9 & R10, Mrunal Naik, AGP, R1 to R4, D.P. Dapurkar, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 05-10-2026
Head Note :-
Cmparative Citation:
2026 BHC-NAG 13432,
Judgment :-

(1) Heard.

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

(3) The present petition challenges the order of the Tahsildar i.e. respondent No.9 in Proceeding which has been confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandur Railway, in Revision Case No.MCA-05/Virul Ronge/11/2023-24 dated 28.06.2025. Without adverting to the rival contentions, it would be advisable to refer to a judgment of this Court reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Bom. 18, Sudhir Yashwant Dhangade Vs. Ankush Kashiram Bole and ors.

(4) In the said judgment and more particularly, in paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof, the scheme of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, has elaborated discussed. This Court has held that statutory obligations is casted on the authority to follow the mandate of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, inasmuch as granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and further, granting opportunity to adversary to cross examine.

(5) By perusal of the impugned order, it seems that such an exercise is not done. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed.

(6) The writ petition is allowed.

(7) The order passed by the Tahsildar in Proceeding as confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is relegated to the Tahsildar for granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and also follow all other procedural aspects in the Mamlatdar Courts Act and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

(8) Needless to mention that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the matter and it should be for the Tahsildar to decide it in accordance with the provisions of the Mamlatdar Courts Act. Furthermore to add that the pendency of the Civil Suit and the order passed therein will also be considered by the Tahsildar while adjudicating the said application.

(9) With these directions, the petition is allowed and disposed of.

(10) It is also brought to my notice that a possession receipt has been executed on 08.07.2026, wherein possession has been delivered to the persons as mentioned in a notice subject to the result of the civil suit pending between the parties. Let the said order be continued for a further period of four weeks from today. It would be open for the parties to seek extension of the said interim order before the Tahsildar, to whom the matter is relegated, after the expiry of the four weeks period.

(11) The parties have agreed to appear before the Tahsildar on 13.10.2026, without any formal notice in that regard.
 
  CDJLawJournal