JUDGMENT :

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the Order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector in proceedings under section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Court's Act, 1906 (for short, the said Act'). By that order the Revisional Authority has affirmed the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar on 6.6.2018.

3. The respondent No.1 moved an application under section 7 of the said Act on 14.5.2018 stating therein that the petitioner was obstructing his right of way. It was further prayed that such obstruction be removed by invoking the provisions of the said Act. On 19.5.2018 the Circle Officer conducted spot inspection and submitted his report to the Naib Tahsildar. The Naib Tahsildar issued a notice 25.5.2018 and directed the parties to remain present on 1.6.2018 for undertaking such inspection. On 1.6.2018 the spot inspection was accordingly conducted and on 6.6.2018 the Naib Tahsildar allowed the application in question. The petitioner filed a revision application which was dismissed by the Resident Deputy Collector on 31.10.2018. Being aggrieved, the said order has been challenged in the writ petition.

4. Shri P.D. Randive, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure prescribed by sections 7 to 12 of the said Act has not been followed while deciding the proceedings. Since the plaint was not verified as required under section 10 of the said Act, the Mamlatdar ought to have rejected the same under section 12 of the said Act. He further submits that there was no opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded and in view of the decision in (Sudhir Yashwant Dhangade Vs. Ankush Kashiram Bole and others) 2019 (2) Bom.C.R. 145, this resulted in breach of principles of natural justice. He also submits that after obtaining the report of spot inspection dated 1.6.2018, the Naib Tahsildar immediately passed the Order on 6.6.2018 without granting any opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded. As there was no compliance with the mandatory provisions of the said Act, the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.

5. Shri R.S. Thengne, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the impugned orders. According to him, since obstruction was being caused by the petitioner, the application by invoking the provisions of section 7 of the said Act came to be moved. Due opportunity was given to the parties to lead evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses but the petitioner failed to avail that opportunity. Placing reliance on the decisions in (Shankar Govindrao Sarnaik and Anr. Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim & Ors.) 2012 B.C.I. (soft) 760 : 2012 (3) All. M.R. 669 and (Shrikrishna Sheshrao Dane and Anr. Vs. Vasant Ramrao Tayade and Anr.) 2017 (7) Bom.C.R. 694(N.B.) : 2018 (2) Mh.L.J. 98, it is submitted that since the said orders had been passed after granting due opportunity to the petitioner, no interference with the impugned orders is called for. The orders passed by the Naib Tahsildar having been made final, the petitioner should approach the Civil Court.

Shri H. Dube, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has produced records of the case for inspection.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. It can be seen that the application in question as filed by the respondent No. 1 is not duly verified as required by section 10 of the said Act. It was necessary for the Mamlatdar to first verify the contents of the plaint in the manner prescribed by section 10 of the said Act. The procedure under section 11 was required to be followed in that regard. It is further seen from the roznama of the proceedings that after obtaining the spot inspection report on 1.6.2018, the proceedings were decided immediately on 6.6.2018. An opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose sta