Back
A. Y. KOGJE
Hasmukhbhai Ishwarbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
DY. Collector And Prant Officer, Gandhinagar – Respondent
What is the correct procedure when the Prant Officer finds the Panchnama unreliable in a Mamlatdar Court Act case? What is the impact of not stating the exact date of cause of action under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts’ Act, and how should Section 7 and 9 be applied? What are the appropriate remedies when a Panchnama is found evasive or unreliable: remand for fresh panchnama or quashing/partial relief?
Key Points: - (!) The court set aside the Deputy Collector’s revision order and remanded to Mamlatdar for fresh hearing with recording of Panchnama in accordance with law. [13000370560016] - (!) Section 7 defines the date on which the cause of action arose; Section 9 requires examination on oath if particulars are missing; the court held failure to state a date does not necessarily bar within six months if proper inquiry is conducted. [13000370560011][13000370560012] - (!) If Panchnama is found unreliable or evasive, the Prant Officer should remand to Mamlatdar for fresh panchnama rather than rely on new or first-time evidence. [13000370560015] - (!) The suit under Section 5 of the Act must be entertained within six months from the date the cause of action arose; the Mamlatdar’s proceedings require proper verification of action dates. [13000370560011] - (!) The matter requires fair and just decision by Mamlatdar after fresh hearing and proper Panchnama recording. [13000370560016] - (!) The deputy collector’s reliance on statements produced for the first time before Prant Officer without opportunity to controvert is erroneous. [13000370560015] - (!) The panchnama dated 20.07.2015 was deemed evasive, leading to irregularity in earlier order. [13000370560014]
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned advocate Mr. Mit Thakkar waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 (4.1 to 4.3) and learned advocate Mr. D.K. Chaudhary waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.6 and 7.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order No.PO/JAMIN/MAM.COURT ACT/SEC.23(2)/CASE NO.4/2016 dated 12.04.2018 by the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer Gandhinagar. By the impugned order, the Deputy Collector has set aside the order dated 09.10.2015 by the Mamlatdar Court in Case No.11 of 2014. The dispute pertains to agriculture land bearing survey/Block No.94 of village Lavarpur, Taluka and District Gandhinagar, which is own and occupied by the petitioner, whereas agriculture land of Survey/Block No.92/B is co-owned on by the response No.3 and respondent No.4 (real brother of respondent No.3), whereas respondent Nos.6 and 7 are co-owners of survey/block number 107 paiki.
3. As the petitioner had become owner and occupier of the aforesaid land by way of registered sale deed from his predecessor in title Shri Nat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
