In a significant victory for farmer Dipak Chandrabhan Gadhade (also known as Gavande), the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has upheld his right of way (rasta) to access his agricultural fields, bringing an end to a long-standing land access dispute in Kaudgaon Athre village, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmednagar.
The High Court, in its judgment delivered on February 12, 2026 (CRA No. 196 of 2025, citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:6216), allowed the civil revision application filed by Dipak, quashed the trial court’s order, and directed the rejection of the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No. 525 of 2024. This effectively restores and confirms the original decision in Dipak’s favour.
The dispute originated in 2020 when Dipak, owner of land bearing Gat No. 106, approached the Tahsildar under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC), seeking a right of way over the boundaries of neighbouring survey numbers (Gat Nos. 120, 121, and 122) to reasonably access his field. After inquiry, the Tahsildar, on February 15, 2023, ruled in Dipak’s favour in Rasta Case No. 24 of 2020. The order declared that Dipak had an easementary right of way, which the neighbouring landowners (respondents Bhimraj Nana Barde, Adinath Bhanudas Gadhade/Gavande, Balasaheb Bhika Shinde, and others) were not to obstruct, keeping in mind the needs of cultivators for reasonable field access.
Aggrieved by the Tahsildar’s decision, the neighbouring landowners first filed a statutory appeal (RTS Appeal No. 79 of 2023) before the Sub-Divisional Officer. However, after an interim application was rejected on June 10, 2024, they withdrew the appeal on August 20, 2024.
Instead of pursuing the appeal to its logical conclusion, the respondents filed a civil suit (RCS No. 525 of 2024) on June 28, 2024, seeking a declaration that the Tahsildar’s 2023 order was bad in law. The defendants (including Dipak) moved an application (Exh. 19) under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the plaint, arguing that the suit was not maintainable and was barred by limitation.
The trial court rejected this application on July 30, 2025, prompting Dipak to approach the High Court in revision.
Justice Shailesh P. Brahme, after hearing both sides, held that the remedies under Section 143 MLRC — statutory appeal/revision under Section 247 or a direct civil suit under sub-section (4) — are mutually exclusive. Once a party elects one remedy (here, the appeal route), they cannot switch to the other. By initially filing the appeal (even though later withdrawn), the respondents had exhausted their option, and the Tahsildar’s order had merged into the appellate process. A civil suit directly challenging the Tahsildar’s decision was therefore not permissible.
Additionally, the court ruled that the suit was time-barred. Section 143(4) MLRC provides a strict one-year limitation period from the date of the Tahsildar’s decision to file a civil suit. The suit, filed more than one year and four months later, was beyond this special limitation, which overrides the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (including Articles 58/113 and Section 14 for exclusion of time spent in other proceedings), as per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents.
The High Court distinguished earlier coordinate bench decisions cited by the respondents and relied on prior judgments affirming the doctrine of election and the exclusivity of remedies under Section 143 MLRC.
With the plaint now rejected, no further civil challenge to the Tahsildar’s order is possible. Dipak’s right of way stands confirmed, ensuring unhindered access to his fields and underscoring the importance of reasonable agricultural access under the MLRC.
Local farmers in Kaudgaon Athre have welcomed the verdict, viewing it as a practical resolution to boundary-related access issues that often hamper cultivation in rural Maharashtra.
Also Read: No OC for Buildings Till STP Installation: Bombay High Court Clamps Down on Sewage Pollution
