Summary proceedings for the removal of obstructions to traditional pathways address immediate usage rather than substantive title. Concurrent factual findings based on physical inspections and evidence in such proceedings are not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction absent manifest perversity.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. This Intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the Writ Court dismissing the writ petition holding that the order impugned passed under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act’ 1906 (for short, “the Act’ 1906”) is a well considered decision within its jurisdiction based on appreciation of evidence and free from perversity or patent illegality. While saying so, the learned Single Judge has kept it open for the parties to establish their easementary rights through appropriate civil proceedings, if they are left with any grievance.

2. We may note, at the outset, that the proceedings giving rise to the present appeal were initiated under Section 5 of the Act’ 1906 and are summary in nature. Any decision under the Act’ 1906 does not have any bearing on the substantive civil rights of the parties, which remain open to be agitated before the Civil Court.

3. It is noted by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned that the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector both have concurrently found existence of a right of way through the shortest and traditionally used route and such finding do not suffer from perversity and, as such, cannot be interfered in the writ jurisdiction.

4. The findings in the judgment impugned are that the dispute essentially pertains to a right of way claimed by the plaintiffs / private respondents therein for ingress and egress to their agricultural land bearing survey Nos.83, 84 and 85, allegedly obstructed by the petitioners, who are owners of adjoining survey Nos.86 and 87. The Mamlatdar, in its order dated 01.04.2025, found that a traditional access road exists passing through survey Nos.86 and 87 and leading to the plaintiffs’ / private respondents’ land bearing survey Nos.83, 84 and 85. The physical inspection revealed obstructions made by way of fencing, wooden planks, crop plantation and ploughing on the said road, clearly confirming recent interference by the petitioners / appellants herein (owners of survey Nos.86 and 87).

5. It was noted by the Writ Court that the plea of the original petitioners / appellants herein of an alternative route was rejected by the Mamlatdar noticing that the alleged route was unusable route and unsupported by any documentary evidence. Old village maps and revenue records corroborate the existence of the road as a long-standing customary pathway, and even prior ownership testimony confirmed its historical use. The Mamlatdar in the summary proceedings conducted by it under Section 5(2) of the Act’ 1906 has clearly held that the road is a proven traditional access road of the respondents and that the petitioners have unlawfully obstructed it, warranting removal of the obstruction.

6. The Writ Court records that in a further challenge before the Deputy Collector, it was found that the Mamlatdar had conducted a proper site inspection, considered oral and documentary evidence, and rightly concluded that a traditional public access road exists through Survey Nos. 87, 86, 85, 84, and 83.

7. These findings returned by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned are sought to be assailed by Mr.Anshin Desai, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants with the submissions that a bare perusal of the village map at page No. ‘130’ of the paper-book would show that there was no way existed. There was nothing to prove the