JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned advocate Mr. Mit Thakkar waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 (4.1 to 4.3) and learned advocate Mr. D.K. Chaudhary waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.6 and 7. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order No.PO/JAMIN/MAM.COURT ACT/SEC.23(2)/CASE NO.4/2016 dated 12.04.2018 by the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer Gandhinagar. By the impugned order, the Deputy Collector has set aside the order dated 09.10.2015 by the Mamlatdar Court in Case No.11 of 2014. The dispute pertains to agriculture land bearing survey/Block No.94 of village Lavarpur, Taluka and District Gandhinagar, which is own and occupied by the petitioner, whereas agriculture land of Survey/Block No.92/B is co-owned on by the response No.3 and respondent No.4 (real brother of respondent No.3), whereas respondent Nos.6 and 7 are co-owners of survey/block number 107 paiki. 3. As the petitioner had become owner and occupier of the aforesaid land by way of registered sale deed from his predecessor in title Shri Natwarbhai Ishwarbhai Patel (respondent No.5), the petitioner has right of way through the lands belonging to respondent Nos.3 to 7 for ingress and outgress alongwith the agriculture equipment like Bullock cart, tractor etc. Based on this, a Suit No.11 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner against the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 under Section 5 of the Mamtatdar Courts’ Act. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the suit came to be allowed, recognizing the pathway and the right of the petitioner to utilize the same for ingress and outgress to his agriculture field. Learned advocate submitted despite the clear cut finding given on fact based upon the Panchnama carried out, the Deputy Collector set aside the order of the Mamlatdar as the private respondents challenged the same. While allowing the revision application of the respondents, the Deputy Collector/Prant Office held that the Panchnama drawn and the verification carried out was not reliable. According to learned advocate, if such exercise was found unreliable, then the matter ought to have been remanded back to the Mamlatdar for fresh round of inspection and Punchnama instead by accepting the subsequent Panchnama, which was not before the Mamlatdar and therefore, the Deputy Collector gave erroneous finding of fact. According to learned advocate, if such exercise was found unreliable, then the matter ought to have been remanded back to the Mamlatdar for fresh round of inspection and Punchnama instead by accepting the subsequent Panchnama, which was not before the Mamlatdar and therefore, the Deputy Collector gave erroneous finding of fact. 4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the Deputy Collector considered the contention of the respondents that no cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner as the alleged action of creating impediment on the path away was not within the period of six months and therefore, the petitioner had failed to file a suit within a period of six month of such obstruction. Learned advocate has drawn attention of the Court to the various recitals in the sale deed indicating that the pathway was mentioned in such document of sale deed. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that for not believing the Punchnama prepared before the Mamlatdar, the Deputy Collector had relied upon an affidavit, which was produced for the first time before the Prant Officer and therefore, there was no proper verification on the basis of such affidavit filed for the first time and the petitioner did not have sufficient opportunity on this issue and therefore, the Parnt Officer ought to have remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar. 5. As against this, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the Prant Officer was justified in holding that the suit was not filed within the prescribe limitation of six months as no date has been mentioned in the suit/plaint itself, whereas reference is made that the alleged obstruction was prior to sometime. Learned advocate submitted that that the Prant Officer was right in relying upon the second panchnama as the same was genuine and was drawn by following all the necessary procedure, whereas the first Panchnama was drawn for which no notice was issued to the respondents. 6. Learned advocate has led great emphasis on Section 5 of the Mamltadar Courts’ Act to submit that in absence of clear date on which the obstruction was created in the alleged usage of pathway, the cause of action within the limitation cannot be presumed. 6. Learned advocate has led great emphasis on Section 5 of the Mamltadar Courts’ Act to submit that in absence of clear date on which the obstruction was created in the alleged usage of pathway, the cause of action within the limitation cannot be presumed. The reliance is placed upon the decision in case of Bhaskarbhai Laxmishankar Mehta v/s. Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Zalavadia, reported in 2011 (JX) Guj.1741 to submit that the Mamlatadar was not justified in proceeding further in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Court Act (for short “the Act”) without ascertaining as to weather the requirement of Section 5 of the Act is justified or not, when the date of cause of action was not stated in the plaint. That itself is sufficient to hold that cause of action was not within the period of six months from and therefore, the Mamltadar in this case ought not to have entertained the suit. 7. The court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. It is a case where petitioner is an owner of old tenure agricultural land of S./B. No.94 admeasuring 00-66-77 H-Are-Sq.mtrs., situated Mouje/Village: Lavarpur, Tal. '& Dist. Gandhinagar. That, Shri Navinbhai Prabhabhai Patel, respondent No.3 herein is a co-owner of agricultural land of S/B.No.92/B, Shri Manubhai Prabhabhai, respondent No.4 herein is a real brother of respondent No.3. That, Shri Harshadbhai Chandubhai, respondent No.6 herein, Shri Ashokbhai Chandubhai, respondent No.7 herein are the co-owners of land of S/B. No.107 Paiki. That, Shri Natvarbhai Ishwarbhai Patel, respondent No.5 herein is a predecessor in title of the petitioner. That, vide registered sale deed dated 16.11.2010 registered before the Ld. Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar at Sr. No.19552, Shri Natvarbhai Ishwarbhai Patel (respondent. No.5) and others had conveyed and sold the said old tenure agricultural land of S/B No.94 in favour of petitioner. Since then, the petitioner is in administration and cultivating the subjected land to earn his livelihoods. That, as per the recital of the said sale deed, the predecessor in title of the petitioner were having right of way from the land of S/B No.107 & 92/B approaching their agricultural field of S/B No.94 through bullock cart, tractor, etc. However, the said land owners had started obstructions in the way of petitioner while ingress and outgress to his field. However, the said land owners had started obstructions in the way of petitioner while ingress and outgress to his field. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner had instituted suit under Section 5 of the Act bearing No. Mamlatdar Court Act/Case No.11/14 against the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and had prayed for injunction against them. That, the petitioner had also produced sketch along with his application to show the exact way approaching to his said agricultural field. 8. That, on 9.7.2014, pursuance to the directions given by the respondent No.2, Ld. Talati-cum-Mantri, Lavarpur Gram Panchayat had prepared Panchnama in the presence of Sarpanch and the parties concerned. That, at the time of carrying out said panchnama (spot inspection), the authority had also recorded statements of the panchas, wherein it is appearing that there is a right of way passing from Govt. Path to S/B No.107 paiki passing from 92/B leading to the said agricultural field of petitioner. That, on 27.3.2015, the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 had filed their reply by objecting the grant of said injunction. It was pointed out that, the petitioner has an alternative way from the Gauchar land of S/B No.91. It was alleged that, the said panchnama is illegal and was carried out at the Office of Gram Panchayat and therefore, had requested for fresh spot inspection/panchnama. The respondent Nos. 3 & 4 had produced affidavits in support of their contention. 9. That, on dated 24.04.2015, the petitioner had submitted written arguments and had produced photographs in support of his case about existence of way/path passing from agricultural land of S/B No.107 and 92/B leading to his agricultural field. It was contended by the petitioner that, originally all the agricultural lands of S/B No.94, 92/B and 107 paiki were owned by one Balkrishna Somnath. That, the said land of S/B No.94 was the tenancy land cultivated by Ishwarbhai Bholidas, father of the respondent. No.5. However, the other parcels of land were in the holding of said landowner. That, on 27.3.1950, ancestor of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, Shri Ramabhai Jordas had purchased the said agricultural lands of S/B No.107, 92/B from said Balkrishna Somnath. The petitioner has contended that, the said tenant/his predessor in title were passing through the said agricultural lands of S/B Nos. That, on 27.3.1950, ancestor of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, Shri Ramabhai Jordas had purchased the said agricultural lands of S/B No.107, 92/B from said Balkrishna Somnath. The petitioner has contended that, the said tenant/his predessor in title were passing through the said agricultural lands of S/B Nos. 107 paiki and 92/B. The Petitioner in his written arguments had denied such alternative way passing from Gauchar land of S/B No.91 as contended by the respondent Nos.3 & 4 by producing cogent evidence. That, pursuance to the application dated 30.6.2015 submitted by respondent Nos. 3 & 4, on 20.7.2017, the Ld. Talati, Lavarpur had carried out fresh spot inspection/panchnama, wherein standing crops in the respective agricultural field had been brought to the notice of Ld. Mamlatdar. That, after considering the further written arguments submitted by all the concerned parties, the Ld. Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar vide his order dated 9.10.2015 was pleased to allow the said suit and further directed the respondents to remove obstructions. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of Ld. Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar, the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 had preferred Revision Application No.PO/JAMIN/MAM. COURT ACT/SEC.-23 (2)/CASE No.4/2016 before the Ld. Dy. Collector & Prant Officer, Gandhinagar, respondent No.2 herein. The respondent No.2 vide order dated 12th April, 2018 was pleased to allow the said revision solely on the ground that, there is variance in panchnama/spot inspection carried out by the Talati-cum-Mantri. 11. Insofar as the argument of respondents in connection of lack of jurisdiction as the cause of action was brought beyond the period of six months, this Court is of the view that plaint filed before the Mamlatdar on 26.02.2014 (Annexure-I) would indicate that it was averred by the petitioner that the respondents since last some time are not permitting the petitioner to use the road. In the opinion of the Court, this averment is sufficient to make out a cause of action as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act, which limits the power of the Mamlatdars’ Court to entertain a suit, which is brought within six months from the date on which the cause of action arose. 12. The Court, at this stage, observes that the proceeding of Mamlatdars’ Court Act are much informal proceeding as compared to strictly compartmentalize proceedings under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, considering the nature of the dispute and the litigants to approach the Mamlatdar Court. 12. The Court, at this stage, observes that the proceeding of Mamlatdars’ Court Act are much informal proceeding as compared to strictly compartmentalize proceedings under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, considering the nature of the dispute and the litigants to approach the Mamlatdar Court. The Act further provides for ascertaining the cause of action by providing Sections 7 and 9 in the Mamlatdar’s Court Act itself. Section 7(d) provides for the date on which the cause of action arose and Section 9 therefore, imposes responsibility upon the Mamlatdar to examine the plaintiff on oath. Section 9 of the Act provides that where the plaint does not contain necessary particulars specified in Section 7, the Mamltdar is obliged to examine the plaintiff upon oath to ascertain particulars required under Section 7 of the Act and reduced such examination to writing and then arrived at satisfaction regarding cause of action and therefore, merely by not stating particular date in the plaint will not take cause of action beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 5 of the Act. In case of haskarbhai Laxmishankar Mehta (Supra) in para 11, the Court has as under:- “11. Section 9 of the Act which is titled “Examination of plaintiff on oath” is relevant for the present purpose. The said provision lays down that where the plaint does not contain the particulars specified in section 7 or is unnecessarily prolix, the Mamlatdar shall forthwith examine the plaintiff on oath and ascertain from him such of the particulars specified in section 7 as are not clearly and correctly stated in the plaint and shall reduce the examination to writing in the form of an endorsement on or annexure to the plaint which shall thereupon be deemed to be part of the plaint. Where the plaintiff requires time to obtain any of the particulars specified in section 7, the Mamlatdar shall grant him such time as may under all circumstances appear reasonable. Thus, in the facts of the present case, since the plaint did not contain the particulars specified in section 7, the Mamlatdar was required to resort to the provisions of section 9 of the Act and examine the plaintiff on oath and ascertain from him such particulars specified in section 7 as are not clearly and correctly stated in the plaint. In the facts of the present case, there is nothing to infer that the Mamlatdar has carried out any such exercise. Thus, the deficiency in the plaint remained as such without the names of the other plaintiffs coming on record and without the date on which the cause of action arose being stated therein.” 13. Further in para 19, the Court has concluded as under. “19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that the Mamlatdar was not justified in proceeding further in exercise of powers under section 5 of the Act without first ascertaining as to whether the requirements of section 5 have been satisfied. Since the date when the cause of action arose had not been stated in the plaint as required undersection 7 of the Act, the Mamlatdar ought to have resorted to the provisions of section 9 and examined the plaintiff on oath to ascertain the correct facts. However, without carrying out any such exercise and ascertaining as to whether the suit was brought within the period prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act, the Mamlatdar has proceeded further to grant the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. Moreover, the original plaintiff, who is the only named plaintiff, has chosen to withdraw the suit. The Mamlatdar has however, continued with the suit at the instance of the respondents No.1 to 19 without carrying out any verification whatsoever as to how the respondents No.1 to 19 could be stated to be plaintiffs in the said suit in the absence of their names or addresses being reflected therein. No exercise appears to have been conducted to ascertain as to whether the respondents No.1 to 19 are in fact the persons owning and occupying the survey numbers mentioned in the cause title of the plaint. In the absence of any such exercise being carried out, the Mamlatdar was not justified in permitting the respondents No.1 to 19 to prosecute the suit which the only named plaintiff sought to withdraw. In the absence of any such exercise being carried out, the Mamlatdar was not justified in permitting the respondents No.1 to 19 to prosecute the suit which the only named plaintiff sought to withdraw. This is so because if the respondents No.1 to 19 were not plaintiffs in the original suit, in a case where there is a prescribed period of limitation, permitting unnamed persons to come on record and prosecute the suit would act to the prejudice of the defendants inasmuch as persons who had not filed the suit within the period of limitation are permitted to come on record much thereafter to prosecute a suit which would have been time barred at their instance. Moreover, as already noted hereinabove, in the absence of the date on which the cause of action arose, the basic requirements of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act are not satisfied and as such, theMamlatdar had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under section 5 of the Act. The Deputy Collector was, therefore, not justified in confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar.” 14. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the Prant Officer has committed an error in concluding that the cause of action in filing suit was not within a period of six months of cause of action and in absence of anything on record to indicate that the Mamtdar has not undertaken the necessary exercise under Sections 7 and 9 of the Act as described hereinabove to ascertain the cause of action and having satisfied himself the Mamlatdar embarked upon the proceedings. 15. The second issue pertaining to the execution of panchnama, it would be appropriate to record the observation made by the Prant officer in connection with such Punchnama, which reads as under:- “It is stated in the Panchnama dated 20.07.2015 carried out by the Talati-Cum-Mantri, Lavarpur that on the northern side of survey No.94, survey No.93 is situated. On the southern side of the said survey No.94, half portion of survey No.96 and survey No.95 are situated. On the eastern side of the said survey No.94, survey No.92 is situated and on the western side of the said survey No.94, half portion of survey No.96 and survey No.91 are situated. While considering the same, it came to the knowledge that the Panchnama carried out the Mamlatdar is evasive. On the eastern side of the said survey No.94, survey No.92 is situated and on the western side of the said survey No.94, half portion of survey No.96 and survey No.91 are situated. While considering the same, it came to the knowledge that the Panchnama carried out the Mamlatdar is evasive. On the basis of the said Panchnama, aforesaid order passed by the Mamlatdar is erroneous.” 16. In view of the aforesaid, once the Prant Officer has given a finding regarding reliability of the Panchnama, in that case, the Prant Officer ought to have remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar with the direction to carry out the afresh panchnama as per the procedure prescribed so as to remove any element or doubt or suspension recording such Punchnama. Instead, by relying the statements which were produced for the first time before the Prant Officer, without there being any sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to controvert the same, the Prant Officer has proceeded to rule in favour of the respondents despite there being a ambiguous position with regard to the Punchnama. 17. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the impugned order No.PO/JAMIN/MAM.COURT ACT/SEC.23(2)/CASE NO.4/2016 dated 12.04.2018 by the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer Gandhinagar is required to be set aside. At the same time, the matter is to be reminded back to the Mamlatdar for fresh hearing after recording the Panchnama in accordance with law so as to bring out a clear picture as it exist on the spot for fair and just decision by the Mamlatdar. With the aforesaid, the petition stands partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.