Procedural lapses in inquiries under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act invalidate findings; due care is required to ensure proper legal process.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. This Intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition challenging the orders dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act’ 1906 (for short, “the Mamlatdars’ Act” or “the Act’ 1906”) as also the order passed in Revision Case No.02 of 2024 dated 07.08.2024 by the Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Valsad. The prayer therein was to restrain the respondent No.1 (herein) from entering into the land belonging to the petitioners bearing Survey Nos. 247 and 248 (old Survey Nos. 195 / 1 and 195 / 2) at Village Vejalpur, Taluka and District Valsad.

2. The dispute is about the alleged right of way granted to the respondent No.1 from the lands belonging to the petitioners / appellants herein. The challenge to the order passed by the Mamlatdar is on the ground that the respondent No.1 was already using the way from the land belonging to one Shri Rahulbhai Desai situated at Survey No.246 (old Survey No. 193/3) for entering into their own land for the purpose of agricultural operations for the last many years. The respondent No.1 had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Shri Rahulbhai Desai dated 22.08.2023, wherein it was agreed that the respondent No.1 shall be utilizing the way passing through the land belonging to Shri Rahulbhai Desai.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid way already being used by the respondent No.1 is passing besides the west side boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner bearing Survey No.248, adjacent to the land of Rahulbhai Desai. It was the specific stand of the original petitioners (appellants herein) before the learned Single Judge that the respondent No.1 in the application filed under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Act did not disclose the date when the cause of action to sue arose, which is the mandatory pre-condition to maintain the application under the said provision. It was argued before the learned Single Judge that though an apot inspection was carried out by the Circle Officer under the instructions of the Mamlatdar and the notice was issued to the petitioners, but Panchnama had not been prepared in the presence of the petitioners nor their signatures were obtained.

4. Further, there is a clear cut breach of Section 19 (2) of the Mamlatdars’ Act and in absence of the mandatory procedure being followed by the Mamlatdar in the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act’ 1906, the order passed by it is to be declared void ab initio and be quashed. Therefore, the Deputy Collector had rejected the revision by a non-speaking order, and hence cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

5. Mr.Maulin Raval, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Rutvij M. Bhatt, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, before the Writ Court, however, in rebuttal, had contended that the orders passed by the two authorities concurrently holding that the respondent No1. had a right of way through the land of the petitioners, which had been obstructed by them, cannot be interfered within the