( 1 ) THE petitioner ? Beleview Associations, described as registered non-trading corporation is before this Court challenging the order passed by the Deputy collector, Viramgam Prant dated 23rd February 1996 in Mamlatdars Courts act/revision/case No. 2/94-95. The Deputy Collector was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order passed by the mamlatdar, Daskroi dated 09. 01. 1995 in Mamlatdars Courts Case No. 2/94.

( 2 ) MR. M. A. PAREKH, the learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Mamlatdar, Daskroi has committed a grave error in passing an order directing the petitioner to open the way leading to land bearing block No. 371 through the land bearing block No. 372 of village lapkaman, Taluka daskroi. He submitted that under Sub-section 2 of Section 5 of Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906, the Mamlatdar has no power to pass such order. He submitted that this court in the matter of PATHAN MUKHTYARKHAN AJAMKHAN VS. PATHAN USMANKHAN rehmatkhan, reported in (1973) 14 GLR 607 has observed in paragraph No. 3 that: "3. The powers of the Mamlatdar functioning under the Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", are to be found in sec. 5. Under sub-sec. 5 (1) of the Act, the Mamlatdar has the power under clause (a) to deal with impediments, erected otherwise than under due authority of law, to the natural flow in a defined channel or otherwise of any surface water. Under clause (b), he has to jurisdiction to give immediate possession of any lands or premises used for agriculture or grazing to any person who has been dispossessed or deprived thereof otherwise than by due course of law. It was not the case of the plaintiff that there was any impediment to natural flow of any surface water, nor was it his contention that he was deprived of possession of any agricultural land and, therefore, the case of the plaintiff would not fall under either of the two clauses of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5 of the Act. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 5 confers power on the Mamlatdar to issue injunction. Under sub-sec. (1), the Mamlatdar can remove the impediment or cause the same to be removed and in the case of dispossession, can give immediate possession; whereas, under sub-sec. (2), the Mamlatdar can only issue an injunction requiring the person concerned to refrain from doing one or the other thing mentioned in the section. In light of the facts of this particular case, the relevant provisions of sub-sec. (2) read as follows :"the said Court shall also, subject to the same provisions, have power within the said limits. . . . . . . . . . when any person is otherwise than by due course of law disturbed or obstructed. . . . . . . . . . . . . in the use of roads or customary ways thereto, to issue an injunction, requiring him to refrain from. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . causing or attempting to cause any further such disturbance or obstruction. "this is the extent of the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 5 of the Act. It is, therefore, obvious that the Mamlatdar has no jurisdiction to issue any order directing removal of the obstruction or to cause the obstruction to be removed. Under these circumstances, the Mamlatdar, when he directed that the defendant should remove the alleged obstruction created by him in the alleged public nelia", was not acting within the four corners of the jurisdiction conferred upon him under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 5 of the Act. In the course of the arguments before me, the provisions of sec. 19, clause (c) were referred to; but that section deals with points to be decided by the Mamlatdar at the hearing and sec. 19 does not deal with the power of the Mamlatdar to pass the appropriate order. Mr. Zaveri for the respondent, original plaintiff, drew my attention to the provisions of sec. 21 (2) and also to the Form in Schedule "c" which lays down the form of injunction to be issued under sec. 21, sub-sec. (2 ). Sec. 21, sub-sec. (2) mentions :"wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document