Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar set aside a remand order issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koregaon, in a matter arising under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906. The High Court held that the revisional authority erred in law by remitting the case back to the Mamlatdar despite having sufficient material to adjudicate the matter on its merits.

The impugned order dated 13 March 2025 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act. The writ petition challenged the legality of this order, asserting that the remand lacked justification in law and resulted in unnecessary prolongation of the dispute.

Also Read: In A Historic First | Supreme Court Publishes Judges Asset Declarations On Website | Remaining Statements To Be Uploaded Upon Receipt

The controversy stems from proceedings initiated before the Mamlatdar seeking removal of an alleged obstruction under the provisions of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906. The Mamlatdar declined relief to the applicant, citing procedural infirmities in the drawing of a key piece of evidence—the panchnama.

As recorded in the judgment, the Mamlatdar found that "the panchnama did not meet the procedural requirements," and this defect was the primary ground for refusal of relief. The matter was carried in revision to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koregaon, who concurred with the finding on the defective panchnama. However, rather than assessing the rest of the evidence to decide the revision on merits, the Sub-Divisional Officer remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar.

The High Court noted that this course of action constituted a serious legal error.

Justice Amit Borkar observed that "an order of remand is not to be passed as a matter of routine, and certainly not merely to fill up lacunae in evidence or to re-do what has already been considered." The Court clarified the limited scope under which remand is permissible:

"A remand may be warranted only if the original authority has failed to consider a material document, the appreciation of which requires either a re-evaluation of evidence or permitting parties to lead fresh evidence. That is not the case here."

The Bench further stated that once the revisional authority found the panchnama to be defective, it was under a legal obligation to test the Mamlatdar's decision based on other available material:

"The revisional authority, having recorded a finding on the defectiveness of the panchnama, was under a legal duty to test the merits of the Mamlatdar’s order in the light of the other evidence on record."

The Court warned against casual exercise of the power of remand, noting that it "leads to avoidable delay in the resolution of disputes" and that courts and quasi-judicial authorities are expected to "ensure effective adjudication in the interest of justice." It was recorded:

"Remand should not be directed where the record is sufficient for final disposal and no prejudice is caused."

The remand in this case was deemed "legally unsustainable" and found to "go to the root of the jurisdiction."

In conclusion, the High Court issued the following directions:

"The impugned order dated 13 March 2025, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koregaon, is hereby quashed and set aside."

"Revision Application No. 6 of 2023 is restored on the file of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koregaon."

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction For Fake Caste Certificate | Section 471 IPC Attracted Without Proof Of Forgery | Sentence Set Aside For Fresh Hearing Under Probation Provisions

"The Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the revision application on its own merits, having due regard to the material produced before the Mamlatdar and the findings recorded therein."

"The parties shall remain present before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koregaon on 13 May 2025 without further notice."

"The Sub-Divisional Officer shall endeavour to dispose of the revision application within a period of six weeks from the date of appearance of the parties, in accordance with law."

"All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open."

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Dilip Bodake

For the Respondent: Ms. M. S. Srivastava, Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Shreyas P. Barsawade

Case Title: Kapil Satish Phalke & Anr. v. The Sub Divisional Officer, Koregaon Sub Division, Koregaon, District Satara & Ors.

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5672 of 2025

Bench: Justice Amit Borkar

[Read/Download order]