The judgment established the mandatory nature of the provisions under Section 19(2) and (3) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, emphasizing the statutory obligations of the Mamlatdar to follow the prescribed procedure in land dispute cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective respondents waive service of notice of Rule. Since a short issue is involved in the writ petition, the same is finally heard and decided today.

2. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur, District Banaskantha in Revision Case No.6 of 2022 and a further prayer is sought to restore the order dated 21.02.2022 passed by the Mamlatdar, Palanpur in Mamlatdar Case No.1 of 2022 (Old Case No.4 of 2021).

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under : -

3.1 It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners and occupiers of the land bearing Survey Nos.757 and 765 situated at Village Sejalpura, Taluka Palanpur, Dist. Banaskantha, whereas the respondent Nos.3 to 5 jointly own Survey Nos.762, 763 and 723 and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 jointly own the land bearing Block Nos.764, 759 and 760.

3.2 In the month of June, 2021, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 have instituted a suit being Case No.1 of 2022 (Old Case No.4 of 2021) against the petitioners under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 (for short, “the Act”), seeking removal of obstruction between Survey Nos.757 and 765. It was alleged that the petitioners have created obstruction on the road passing through the land between Survey Nos.757 and 765, leading to survey numbers owned by the respondent nos.3 to 7 and hence, it was alleged that the private respondents were unable to access their respective lands.

3.3 A panchnama was carried out on 22.06.2021, as directed by the Mamlatdar Court. It is pertinent to note that after the panchnama was carried out, a notice was issued to the petitioners, pursuant to which the petitioners filed their reply before the Mamlatdar Court. After the proceedings were undertaken by the Mamlatdar, vide order dated 21.02.2022 passed in Mamlatdar Case No.1 of 2022, the suit preferred by the private respondent Nos.3 to 7 was rejected by holding that no cause of action has arisen and there also exists an alternative permanent way to access their lands.

3.4 Being aggrieved, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 challenged the aforesaid order by preferring Revision Application No.6 of 2022 before the respondent No.1 i.e. the Deputy Collector, Banaskantha. After hearing the respective parties, by the impugned order dated 25.05.2022, the Deputy Collector allowed the revision application preferred by the respondent Nos.3 to 7, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS:

4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Kharadi, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the only option available to the Deputy Collector was to remand the matter to the Mamlatdar Court since it was recorded that the relevant documents and the panchnama in question were not at all examined by the Mamlatdar. It is submitted that in case the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar Court, the documents, on which the Deputy Collector has placed reliance, could have been examined by the Mamlatdar Court by leading evidence. It is submitted that instead of remanding the matter, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector undertaking the exercise of examining all the documents including the maps of the concerned survey number, is impermissible as per the Act, hence the order passed by the Deputy Collector was required to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Kharadi has further contended that as per the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Act, the Mamlatdar is the only authority who can undertake the necessary exercise of re-examining the entire issue by preparing a fresh panchnama, in case the Deputy Collector has found it to be defective in nature. Thus, it is urged that the matter may be remanded.

6. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Majmudar, appearing for the private respondents has submitted that the impugned order does not require any inte