Mandatory compliance with the provisions of the Act and adherence to the principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings

JUDGMENT :

R.B. Deo, J.

1. The respondents 3 to 7 preferred an application dated 22.4.2019, invoking the provisions of section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("Code"), seeking approach road to their agricultural fields from the agricultural field of the petitioners. The application is premised on the assertion that there is no alternate road available and that the road which is sought, is the direct and convenient road.

2. The learned Tahsildar allowed the application dated 22.4.2019 by cryptic order dated 6.7.2019 relying on the spot inspection done.

3. The order of the learned Tahsildar was challenged in revision and the revisional authority remitted the matter to the learned Tahsildar with the direction that recourse be taken to the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 ("Act"). The learned Tahsildar has, after remand, again granted relief to the respondents 3 to 7 and the challenge of the petitioners before the revisional authority has failed.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the orders are liable to be quashed.

5. Perusal of the application reveals that the contents are not supported by affidavit. No step is taken by the learned Tahsildar under section 8 of the Act. The observations of this Court in Gaurakshan Sansthan, Murtizapur v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2019(6) Mh.L.J. 473, read thus:

"5. Heard learned Counsel. The provisions of Section 7 of the said Act require the proceedings to be commenced by way of a plaint. The particulars to be stated therein have been stipulated in Section 7. Under Section 9 of the said Act when the plaint does not contain the particulars specified in Section 7 then the Mamlatdar has to examine the plaintiff on oath and ascertain from him whether the particulars stated are correct. These aspects have to be reduced in writing in the form of an endorsement on or annexure to the plaint. Under Section 10 of the said Act, the Mamlatdar has to require the plaintiff to subscribe and verify the plaint in his presence in the manner specified. Section 12 thereafter empowers the Mamlatdar to reject the plaint if the plaintiff fails to furnish particulars as required by Section 7 within the time fixed under Section 9 of the said Act. These provisions therefore indicate the mandatory nature of the compliance to be done as stipulated by Section 7 of the said Act. It is only when the plaint is found to be admissible that the Mamlatdar can proceed with the adjudication on merits.

6. Though the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 sought to rely upon the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act, the procedure prescribed therein requiring the Mamlatdar to explain to the person presenting the petition the nature of reliefs that could be granted and the option given to the petitioner to express such desire has to be endorsed on the petition has not been shown to have been followed. There is no such endorsement as required under Section 8 of the said Act. In the reply filed by the petitioner before the Naib Tahasildar these objections were specifically raised but they have not been considered by both the Authorities. It is thus clear that the impugned orders are not sustainable on the ground that the necessary compliance with the provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the said Act has not been done. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

(1) The order dated 10-8-2017 passed by the Naib Tahasildar and the order dated 6-11-2017 passed by the Additional Collector is set aside.

(2) The respondent No. 3 is at liberty to file fresh application on the same cause of action by complying with provisions of Section 7 of the said Act. The report of the Talathi which is already on record can also be considered in such proceedings. By observing that the fresh proceedings if filed be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, the writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs."

Since it is well settled that an