High Courts will not interfere in writ jurisdiction with concurrent findings of a Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector in summary proceedings under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, provided the findings are not perverse and substantive rights remain open for civil adjudication.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-

“23(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the Mamlatdar, Dhanera in Mamlatdar's Courts Act η Case No.9 of 2023 (Annexure M to the present petition) as well as dated 19.05.2025 passed by learned Deputy Collector, Dhanera in Mamlatdar Court Act Revision Appeal No.6 of 2024 (Annexure Q to the present petition), in the interest of justice;

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the Mamlatdar, Dhanera in Mamlatdar's Courts Act Case No.9 of 2023 (Annexure M to the present petition) to the present dated well as as 19.05.2025 passed by learned Deputy Collector, Dhanera in Mamlatdar Court Act Revision Appeal No.6 of 2024 (Annexure Q to the present petition), in the interest of justice;

(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present writ petition is that the petitioners are the owners of Survey No. 72 and petitioner No. 2 of Survey No. 78 of Village Mandal, Tal. Dhanera. The respondents claimed that for access to their agricultural lands, they had been using a road passing through the petitioners’ land. Alleging that the petitioners had closed and obstructed the said way, the private respondents instituted proceedings under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 before the Mamlatdar, Dhanera. Accordingly a panchnama was drawn on 12.09.2023 by the Circle Officer, Jadiya. The Mamlatdar, Dhanera, by order dated 23.08.2024 directed the petitioners to remove the alleged obstructions and not to prevent the respondents from using the disputed road. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred Revision before the Deputy Collector, Dhanera, who, by order dated 19.05.2025, rejected the revision application and confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar.

3. Mr. S.P.Majmudar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Mamlatdar failed to frame issues as mandatorily required under Section 19(1)(c)(1)(2)(3) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act and did not record findings on such issues. Framing of issues and recording findings thereon is a condition precedent for deciding a suit under the Act. Reliance is placed on Civil Revision Application No. 1280 of 2000 (Paras 7, 9, 11, 12, and 13), wherein this Court held that without framing and deciding statutory issues, the Mamlatdar lacks jurisdiction to decide the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the proceedings before the Mamlatdar were clearly barred by limitation as the suit was filed beyond the period of six months prescribed under Section 5(3) of the Act, and therefore, the Mamlatdar lacked jurisdiction to entertain or decide the case.

3.1 He further submits that the Panchnama dated 12.09.2023 was prepared by the Circle Officer, which is impermissible under Section 19(2) of the Act as the statute mandates that spot inspection must be carried out by the Mamlatdar himself. The petitioners rely upon the judgment reported in Nagarbhai Bhikabhai Keda Vs. Deputy Collector 2023(3) GLH 583 (Paras 11–15), wherein this Court has held that a Panchnama carried out by a Circle Officer instead