JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside order dated 5.8.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector, Botad in M-Court Revision/BTD/9/2021 and order dated 25.5.2021 passed by the Mamlatdar, Botad in Mamlatdar Court Case Reg. No.1/2021.

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule. Learned AGP, Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned advocate Mr. Meet Pansuria, and learned advocate Ms. Siddhi Vadodariya waive service of rule on behalf of respective respondents. Though notice was served, respondent Nos.5.1 to 5.7 have chosen not to appear before the Court.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioners are the original respondents of Mamlatdar Court Act Case No.1/2021, which was preferred by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 by way of plaint prayed before the Mamlatdar, Botad that they are the owners of agricultural land bearing survey No.212 paiki of Village Rangpur, Taluka and District Botad. The land is ancestral land and the only way to have ingress and egress to their agricultural land is known as ‘sim talavdi valo rasto’. From that road they can go to sheda of Survey No.194 and from there they can reach survey No.212 paiki. It is their case that the petitioners are causing hindrance and obstructing their excess to way to their agricultural fields, and therefore, by way of the application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 (for short, ‘the Act’). They prayed before the Mamlatdar, Botad to direct the petitioners not to cause obstructions in excess to their right of way.

3.1 Pursuant to the application preferred by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, the Mamlatdar, Botad issued notice to the petitioners and conducted the proceedings under the Act and ultimately vide order dated 25.5.2021 allowed application preferred by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and directed the petitioners to remove the obstructions on the way claimed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 at their own cost and also directed the petitioners not to cause any obstructions to the present respondent Nos.3 and 4 in having ingress and egress to their fields even by way of bullock cart, tractor, etc.

3.2 The aforesaid order dated 25.5.2021 was challenged by way of a revision application under Section 23 of the Act by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector, Botad. However, even the Deputy Collector, Botad also vide order dated 5.8.2021 confirmed the order dated 25.5.2021 passed by the Mamlatdar, Botad.

3.3 Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 25.5.2021 passed by the Mamlatdar, Botad and order dated 5.8.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector, Botad, the petitioners have preferred the petition.

4. Mr. Panam Soni, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the original application made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 under Section 5 of the Act does not bear any date nor any cause of action, and therefore, the plaint was a defective plaint.

4.1 Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that it was the duty of the Mamlatdar to examine respondent Nos.3 and 4 on oath, as provided under Section 9 of the Act and to ascertain about the cause of action as well as the date on which the cause of action has arisen. However, the Mamlatdar, Botad has failed to perform that obligation cast upon him under Section 9 of the Act and without following the procedure prescribed in Section 9 of the Act straightaway believed respondent Nos.3 and 4 and without putting anything in writing as provided under Section 9 of the Act conducted the proceedings under the Act and passed order dated 25.5.2021, which was confirmed by the Deputy Collector, Botad.

4.2 Mr. Soni, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that since the mandatory requirement stipulated in Section 9 of the Act is not followed by the Mamlatdar, Botad, the proceedings cannot be said to be in accordance with law, and therefore, the entire proceedings are bad and dese