Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are adjacent landholders, challenged the orders of the Mamlatdar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 in Rasta Case No.13 of 2018 and the revisional order dated 28/06/2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrirampur Division, which allowed the Rasta Case filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 had earlier filed Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 2016 seeking a permanent injunction to use a way from their land to the road, but the suit was dismissed. Subsequently, they filed Rasta Case No.13 of 2018 before the Mamlatdar, who after considering evidence, directed the petitioners to remove obstruction from the way. The petitioners' revision before the Sub-Divisional Officer was dismissed. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, examined whether the concurrent findings of fact were perverse or suffered from jurisdictional error. The court noted that the Mamlatdar and the Sub-Divisional Officer had recorded findings based on evidence, including the existence of a way and its obstruction by the petitioners. The High Court held that there was no perversity or error of jurisdiction, and the writ petition was dismissed. The court emphasized that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence.
Headnote
A) Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 - Section 5 - Right of Way - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The petitioners challenged the Mamlatdar's order directing removal of obstruction to a right of way and the revisional order affirming it. The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact by the Mamlatdar and the Sub-Divisional Officer, based on evidence, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse or without jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10)
B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The court reiterated that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or perversity in findings, not to reappreciate evidence. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 and the Sub-Divisional Officer in revision suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mamlatdar's Courts Act
- 1906
- Section 5
- Right of way
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Writ jurisdiction
- Interference limited to perversity or jurisdictional error
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 18
Writ Petition No.9637 of 2022
Mr. Arora Shyam C. for Petitioners, Mr. K. B. Jadhavar for Respondent Nos.3 and 4, Mr. D. R. Markad for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
Raghu s/o Narayan Dukre and others
Gorakshnath s/o Mahadeo Nalkar and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders under Section 5 of Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 regarding right of way.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of Mamlatdar's order in Rasta Case No.13 of 2018 and revisional order dated 28/06/2022 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the orders were perverse and without jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 2016 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for permanent injunction was dismissed. Subsequently, Rasta Case No.13 of 2018 was filed before Mamlatdar, which was allowed. Revision No.176 of 2021 before Sub-Divisional Officer was dismissed.
Issues
Whether the Mamlatdar's order under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 and the revisional order suffer from perversity or jurisdictional error.
Whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact in writ jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the orders were perverse and without jurisdiction.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued no interference warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact by the Mamlatdar and Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906, based on evidence, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless the findings are perverse or the authority acted without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 in Rasta Case No.13 of 2018, and the order dated 28/06/2022 passed by the respondent No.4-The Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrirampur Division, Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar, in Revision No.176 of 2021 allowing the Rasta Case filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein.
The petitioners and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are adjacent land holders.
Procedural History
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 2016 for permanent injunction, which was dismissed. They then filed Rasta Case No.13 of 2018 before the Mamlatdar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906, which was allowed. The petitioners filed Revision No.176 of 2021 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was dismissed on 28/06/2022. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906: Section 5
- Constitution of India: Article 227
