BHASKAR ANANDA LONKAR AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
Limits of Tahsildar's Jurisdiction under Mamlatdar’s Courts Act: Invalidity of Directions Affecting Non-Parties and Violation of Natural Justice.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:13233
Decision Date: 25-03-2026
List of Laws
Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906; Principles of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem); Constitution of India, Article 227; Administrative Law - Jurisdictional Excess
- Facts: Respondent no.4 instituted a Rasta Case (No. 54 of 2020) against the petitioners before the Tahsildar, Parner, under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906. The respondent alleged that the petitioners had obstructed his right of way (Vahivat rasta) to his agricultural land in gut no.1327. During the proceedings, a panchnama was conducted which revealed that the path claimed by the respondent through gut no.1328 did not exist on the ground. Consequently, the Tahsildar dismissed the respondent's application. However, while dismissing the case, the Tahsildar issued "unwarranted" directions in clauses 2 and 3 of the order, effectively granting the respondent a right of way through gut no.1234. This land (gut no.1234) belonged to respondent no.11, who was neither a party to the original suit nor given notice of the panchnama or hearing.
- Procedural Posture: Aggrieved by the Tahsildar’s directions affecting his property, respondent no.11 filed a Revision Application (No. 362 of 2023) before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Srigonda. The SDO allowed the revision, setting aside the Tahsildar’s directions on the grounds of jurisdictional error and violation of natural justice. The original petitioners (against whom the Rasta Case was first filed) then approached the High Court via this Writ Petition challenging the SDO's revisional order.
- Issue: Whether a Tahsildar, while exercising jurisdiction under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, can issue directions affecting the property rights of a third party who was not joined as a party to the proceedings or given an opportunity to be heard.
- Holding: No, the Tahsildar cannot issue such directions. The High Court upheld the SDO's order, finding that the Tahsildar exceeded his jurisdiction and acted in violation of the principles of natural justice.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the scope of proceedings under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, is strictly limited. The Tahsildar’s primary function under Section 5 is to address specific grievances of obstruction. By granting a right of way through gut no.1234—owned by a person who was not a party to the litigation—the Tahsildar acted without authority. The Court emphasized that the revisional petitioner (respondent no.11) was seriously prejudiced as he was never given an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Mamlatdar’s Court is a summary jurisdiction, and complex questions regarding the crystallization of civil rights must be pursued in a competent Civil Court rather than through unwarranted administrative directions in a dismissed Rasta Case.
🔒 For Members Only