The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of correctly identifying the applicable legal provisions and ensuring compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act.

JUDGMENT

Arun R. Pedneker, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard all the parties finally.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 26/03/2021, passed by the Sub-Divisional officer, Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar, in Revision Application No.26 of 2021 whereby the Revisional authority was pleased to dismiss the revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 28/07/2020, passed by the Tahsildar (Mamlatdar), Akole Tq.Akola, Dist.Ahmednagar, in Rasta Case No.39 of 2018.

3. Facts in brief can be summarized as under :-

The petitioners are the owners and possessors of land admeasuring 73 Are in Survey No.39/7 in village Mehenduri Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. The respondent Nos.3 to 15 have their land situated in Survey No.94 and 96. The respondent Nos.3 to 15 instituted a Rasta Case bearing No.39 of 2018 against the petitioners under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act before the Tahsildar titled as under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

4. It was the contention of the Appellants in the said application that the petitioners had obstructed their road on 29/06/2018 and petitioners be directed to remove the obstruction on the said road. The appellants, thereafter, realised that there is some error in the application and although the application was filed in the nature of suit seeking relief available under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, it was wrongly titled as an application under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Therefore, they sought amendment to the application and by order dated 07/02/2019 an amendment was carried out to the application. By virtue of the said amendment, the title mentioned in the application was changed and the application was treated to be as an application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act.

5. The proceedings were conducted before the Tahsildar/Mamlatdar and on examination of the material, the Mamlatdar direct to remove the obstruction on the road passing through the petitioners land to the respondents land. The petitioners filed revision before the revisional authority challenging the order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. The revisional authority by order dated 26/03/2021 dismissed the revision application filed by the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition.

6. The petitioners contention is as under :-

(i) The application under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code ought not to have been converted into application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act.

(ii) That the procedure contemplated under Section 7 to 10 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act are not followed.

(iii) That the witnesses were not cross examined by the petitioners and were not made available for the cross examination, and as such, the orders passed by the authority suffers from the infirmities.

(iv) Finding recorded by both the authorities are perverse.

7. The learned Advocate for the petitioners relied on the following decisions :-

(a) Writ Petition No.702 of 2017, Bhimrao s/o Namdeo Dole Vs. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Darwha and others, decided on 16/10/2019, (Nagpur Bench).

 (b) Gaurakshan Sansthan, Murtizapur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2019(3) ALL MR 849,

(c) Writ petition No.2086 of 2013, Baburao s/o Maruti Sawant Vs. Hanumant s/o Yada Naik and Ors., decided on 07/07/2017, (Aurangabad Bench)

(d) Krushna s/o Damaji Choudhari and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division and others, reported in 2012(1) Mh.L.J. 795, And

(e) Sudhir Yashwant Dhangade Vs. Ankush Kashiram Bole and Ors., reported in 2019(1) ALL MR 825.

8. The learned Advocate for respondents submits that the application which was filed as Rasta Case No.39 of 2018 had sought reliefs available under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act and was wrongly titled as application under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and that all the requirements of the plaint of the M