High Court of Gujarat Quashes Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector Orders for Non-Compliance with Mandatory Provisions Under Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906. Ex parte Decree Set Aside as Mamlatdar Failed to Frame Issues, Record Evidence, and Prepare Panchnama and Map as Required by Law.

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 300A of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed under the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906.

Quashment of the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by respondent no.3 (Deputy Collector) and the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by respondent no.2 (Mamlatdar); in the alternative, remand of the matter to the respondent authorities for fresh consideration.

Respondent no.4 (original plaintiff) filed a suit under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 alleging that the petitioners (defendants) blocked the way to his land; Mamlatdar allowed the suit ex parte without following mandatory procedures; Deputy Collector dismissed the revision; petitioners pleaded violation of Sections 7–19 of the Act and principles of natural justice.

Mamlatdar (respondent no.2) passed ex parte order dated 18.07.2023 allowing the suit of respondent no.4; Deputy Collector (respondent no.3) rejected the revision by order dated 22.11.2023.

Whether the Mamlatdar complied with the mandatory provisions of Sections 7 to 19 of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906, particularly regarding framing of issues, recording of evidence, and preparing panchnama and map, before passing an ex parte order. Whether the impugned orders are sustainable in law or violate principles of natural justice and thus warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Petitioners: The Mamlatdar failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sections 7–19 of the Act, including framing of issues, recording of evidence, and drawing of panchnama and map; the suit lacked verification and did not mention the specific date of cause of action; the Sarpanch’s report and map showed existence of an alternative metalled road; the ex parte order was passed without granting time to file reply, in breach of natural justice. Respondent no.4: The petitioners deliberately delayed proceedings and raised new grounds for the first time before the High Court; the revenue authorities had recorded concurrent findings of fact which should not be lightly interfered with; no error of law was committed. State: The impugned orders were just and proper and did not suffer from any legal infirmity.

The Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 imposes mandatory duties on the Mamlatdar to follow the procedural requirements under Sections 7 to 19, including framing of issues, recording of evidence, and preparation of panchnama and map. Non-compliance with these mandatory provisions renders the proceedings void ab initio and violates the principles of natural justice. An ex parte order passed without granting the defendant an opportunity to file a reply and without observing the statutory safeguards cannot be sustained. The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can quash such orders and direct fresh adjudication.

the respondent – Mamlatdar proceeded further ex parte and passed impugned order, whereby the suit preferred by the respondent no.4 has been allowed the respondent no.4 has made several contentions in the suit preferred by him but his evidence has not been recorded by the respondent – Mamlatdar it is the duty of the Mamlatdar concerned to prepare panchnama and Map of the place in question but the respondent – Mamlatdar has not taken care of drawing panchnama and map it is an admitted position of fact that the respondent – Mamlatdar has not complied with the mandatory requirement as prescribed in the statute itself whether the respondent – Mamlatdar has complied with the mandatory provisions of law as prescribed under the statute and in absence of it, whether the impugned orders would stand

Respondent no.4 (original plaintiff) filed suit under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 before the Mamlatdar (respondent no.2) seeking injunction against the petitioners (original defendants) for allegedly blocking the way to his land. The Mamlatdar issued notice to the petitioners, who initially did not appear. Later, the petitioners appeared, submitted certain documents, and sought time to file a reply, but the request was denied. The Mamlatdar proceeded ex parte and by order dated 18.07.2023 allowed the suit. The petitioners filed a revision application before the Deputy Collector (respondent no.3), which was rejected by order dated 22.11.2023. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging both orders.

• Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906: 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
• Constitution of India: 14, 19, 21, 226, 300A