Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent, matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16/06/2017 and 02/01/2018 passed by the learned Tehsildar, Chiplun and learned Additional Collector, Ratnagiri respectively.

3. The respondent no.1 claim to be in possession of land under Gat No.79 which is situated towards western side of Gat No.68. The respondent claim that he has been using a passage passing through Gat No.68 and that the petitioner had obstructed the same by enclosing the Gat No.68 with a compound wall. The respondent no.1 therefore filed an application under Section 5 of Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906 seeking directions against the petitioner to remove obstructions over the passage in Gat No.68 of Post Kamathe, Chiplun, Dist. Ratnagiri and to restrain him from obstructing use of the said passage.

4. The learned Mamlatdar examined the respondent no.1 and his witnesses and by order dated 16/06/2017 allowed the application and directed the petitioner to remove the obstructions from the passage in Gat No.68 and further restrained him from creating any such obstruction and/or preventing the respondent no.1 from using the said passage. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Additional Collector, Ratnagiri. The Additional Collector dismissed the said revision application by order dated 02/01/2018. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

5. Mr. Bakul Bhosale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine the respondent and his witnesses and/or to adduce his evidence. He submits that the impugned order is in breach of the principles of natural justice.

6. Mr. V.S. Tadake, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the petitioner had neither applied before the Mamlatdar for leave to cross examination nor had he raised this ground before the Additional Collector, Ratnagiri. Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot raise it as a ground of challenge. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 further submits that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit and the rights of the parties will be finally adjudicated in the said suit. In the circumstances, the impugned cannot be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction.

7. The short point, which falls for determination, is whether the impugned order is vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice.

8. It is to be noted that section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Court Act confers powers on the Mamlatdar to address the grievances and give quick relief to agriculturists in relation to the land used for agriculture. Subsection 1 of Section 5 reads thus :-

“5. Powers of Mamlatdar's Courts.-

(1) Every Mamlatdar shall preside over a Court, which shall be called a Mamlatdar’s Court, and which shall, subject to the provisions of sections 6 and 26, have power, within such territorial limits as may from time to time be [fixed by the State Government,]

(a) to remove or cause to be removed any impediment, erected otherwise than under due authority of law, to the natural flow in a defined channel or otherwise of any surface water naturally rising in or falling on any land used for agriculture, grazing, trees or crops, on to any adjacent land, where such impediment causes or is likely to cause damage to the land used for such purpose or to any such grazing, trees or crops thereon ;

(b) to give immediate possession ] of any lands or premises used for agriculture or grazing, or trees, or crops or fisheries, or to restore the use of water from any well, tank, canal or watercourse, whether natural or artificial used for agricultural purposes to any person who has been dispossessed or deprived thereof otherwise than by due course of law, or who has become entitled to the possession or restoration thereof by reason of the determination of any tenancy or other right of any other person, not being a person who has been a former o