Quasi-judicial authorities are bound by mandatory procedural requirements stipulated in the governing statute. Failure to perform essential duties, such as examining parties on oath to ascertain the cause of action, renders the proceedings defective and necessitates a remand for de novo adjudication to ensure due process.

ORDER :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. By way of filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assailed the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Mamlatdar, Jalalpor in the proceedings initiated under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act (it shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) and order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Collector, Navsari in revision application, whereby the order passed by the Mamlatdar has been upheld.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshit Thakkar for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Yogin Bhambhani for respondent No.4 and learned AGP Mr. Siddarth Desai for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar for the petitioner has referred the facts mentioned in the petition and submitted that the respondent No.4 herein – original plaintiff had made compliant (suit) to the Mamlatdar, Jalalpor and Collector, Navsari, inter alia, alleging that he is the owner and occupier of land bearing New Block/Survey No. 553 (Old Block/Survey No.304), situated at Village Dambhar, Taluka: Jalalpor, District:Navsari and he has a right of way, which is blocked by the present petitioner and therefore appropriate directions may be issued to the petitioner to open the said road by removing the impediments/obstructions. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Collector, Navsari forwarded it to the Mamlatdar, Jalalpor vide communication dated 18.05.2023 and directed him to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, upon receipt of the report from the Circle Officer concerned, the Mamlatdar had initiated the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act by treating the said complaint as a plaint and issued notice to the petitioner herein. Upon receipt of the notice from the Mamlatdar, petitioner herein had submitted his written statement/reply to the plaint. Thereafter, after considering and appreciating the materials/documents available on record, the suit came to be allowed by the Mamlatdar vide order dated 09.01.2024, directing the defendant - petitioner herein to open the way, which alleged to have been blocked by the petitioner, by removing the impediments/obstructions created by the petitioner for smooth usage of the right of way of the respondent No.4.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Mamlatdar, the petitioner assailed it before the Deputy Collector by preferring revision application. However, the said revision application also came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.08.2024, whereby, the order passed by the Mamlatdar has been upheld. Hence, petitioner has preferred present petition.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar submits that in fact at the time of initiation of the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act, mandatory and statutory provisions of the Act itself are required to be followed/complied with by the Mamlatdar concerned in stricto sensu manner. However, the record reveals that at the time of initiation of the proceedings, the Mamlatdar concerned has not complied with the statutory provisions of the Act in true sense and proper perspective and therefore the order passed by the Mamlatdar, which is confirmed by the Deputy Collector in the revision application, are required to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar has read the plaint filed by the plaintiff under Section 5 of the Act and submitted that if the Hon’ble Court would make cursory glance upon the contents of the plaint, in that event, it would have been found out that the plaint does not disclose when the cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit has arisen and therefore the plaint its