JUDGMENT : A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the Order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector in proceedings under section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Court's Act, 1906 (for short, the said Act'). By that order the Revisional Authority has affirmed the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar on 6.6.2018. 3. The respondent No.1 moved an application under section 7 of the said Act on 14.5.2018 stating therein that the petitioner was obstructing his right of way. It was further prayed that such obstruction be removed by invoking the provisions of the said Act. On 19.5.2018 the Circle Officer conducted spot inspection and submitted his report to the Naib Tahsildar. The Naib Tahsildar issued a notice 25.5.2018 and directed the parties to remain present on 1.6.2018 for undertaking such inspection. On 1.6.2018 the spot inspection was accordingly conducted and on 6.6.2018 the Naib Tahsildar allowed the application in question. The petitioner filed a revision application which was dismissed by the Resident Deputy Collector on 31.10.2018. Being aggrieved, the said order has been challenged in the writ petition. 4. Shri P.D. Randive, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure prescribed by sections 7 to 12 of the said Act has not been followed while deciding the proceedings. Since the plaint was not verified as required under section 10 of the said Act, the Mamlatdar ought to have rejected the same under section 12 of the said Act. He further submits that there was no opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded and in view of the decision in (Sudhir Yashwant Dhangade Vs. Ankush Kashiram Bole and others) 2019 (2) Bom.C.R. 145 , this resulted in breach of principles of natural justice. He also submits that after obtaining the report of spot inspection dated 1.6.2018, the Naib Tahsildar immediately passed the Order on 6.6.2018 without granting any opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded. As there was no compliance with the mandatory provisions of the said Act, the impugned orders were liable to be set aside. 5. Shri R.S. Thengne, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the impugned orders. As there was no compliance with the mandatory provisions of the said Act, the impugned orders were liable to be set aside. 5. Shri R.S. Thengne, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the impugned orders. According to him, since obstruction was being caused by the petitioner, the application by invoking the provisions of section 7 of the said Act came to be moved. Due opportunity was given to the parties to lead evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses but the petitioner failed to avail that opportunity. Placing reliance on the decisions in (Shankar Govindrao Sarnaik and Anr. Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim & Ors.) 2012 B.C.I. (soft) 760 : 2012 (3) All. M.R. 669 and (Shrikrishna Sheshrao Dane and Anr. Vs. Vasant Ramrao Tayade and Anr.) 2017 (7) Bom.C.R. 694(N.B.) : 2018 (2) Mh.L.J. 98 , it is submitted that since the said orders had been passed after granting due opportunity to the petitioner, no interference with the impugned orders is called for. The orders passed by the Naib Tahsildar having been made final, the petitioner should approach the Civil Court. Shri H. Dube, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has produced records of the case for inspection. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. It can be seen that the application in question as filed by the respondent No. 1 is not duly verified as required by section 10 of the said Act. It was necessary for the Mamlatdar to first verify the contents of the plaint in the manner prescribed by section 10 of the said Act. The procedure under section 11 was required to be followed in that regard. It is further seen from the roznama of the proceedings that after obtaining the spot inspection report on 1.6.2018, the proceedings were decided immediately on 6.6.2018. An opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded was required to be given. As held in Sudhir Yashwant Dhangade [supra) that since the right of cross-examination is a legal right, there was no question of any application being filed for seeking the right to cross-examine those witnesses. Such opportunity has not been granted in the present case. A similar issue has been considered in (Gaurakshan Sansthan, Murtizapur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others), 2019 (4) Bom. C.R. 643 : 2019 (3) All. Such opportunity has not been granted in the present case. A similar issue has been considered in (Gaurakshan Sansthan, Murtizapur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others), 2019 (4) Bom. C.R. 643 : 2019 (3) All. M.R. 849 wherein it has been held that the mandatory provisions of the said Act commencing from section 7 have to be duly complied with. It is seen that the prescribed procedure has not been duly followed and on that count, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with. 7. In Shankar G. Sarnaik & anr. [supra) despite opportunity, the witnesses were not cross-examined. On that count it was held that the parties could not raise a grievance at later stage. The facts in the present case are quite distinct. Since it is found that necessary procedure has not been followed, the course prescribed in Gaurakshan Sansthan, Murtizapur [supra) is required to be followed. 8. Accordingly, the Orders dated 6.6.2018 passed by the Naib Tahsildar and dated 31.10.2018 passed by Resident Deputy Collector are set aside. The respondent No. 1 is at liberty to file a fresh application on the same cause of action by complying with the provisions of section 7 of the said Act. Reports in respect of spot inspection which are already on record can be considered in this proceedings. The fresh application in question be filed within four weeks from today. Till the proceedings are decided, the parties shall continue to maintain the present position. The parties while using the way in question shall take precaution that the crops standing in the respective fields shall not be damaged or destroyed. All points on merits are kept open. The writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.