JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside order dated 5.8.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector, Botad in M-Court Revision/BTD/9/2021 and order dated 25.5.2021 passed by the Mamlatdar, Botad in Mamlatdar Court Case Reg. No.1/2021. 2. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule. Learned AGP, Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned advocate Mr. Meet Pansuria, and learned advocate Ms. Siddhi Vadodariya waive service of rule on behalf of respective respondents. Though notice was served, respondent Nos.5.1 to 5.7 have chosen not to appear before the Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioners are the original respondents of Mamlatdar Court Act Case No.1/2021, which was preferred by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 by way of plaint prayed before the Mamlatdar, Botad that they are the owners of agricultural land bearing survey No.212 paiki of Village Rangpur, Taluka and District Botad. The land is ancestral land and the only way to have ingress and egress to their agricultural land is known as ‘sim talavdi valo rasto’. From that road they can go to sheda of Survey No.194 and from there they can reach survey No.212 paiki. It is their case that the petitioners are causing hindrance and obstructing their excess to way to their agricultural fields, and therefore, by way of the application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 (for short, ‘the Act’). They prayed before the Mamlatdar, Botad to direct the petitioners not to cause obstructions in excess to their right of way. 3.1 Pursuant to the application preferred by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, the Mamlatdar, Botad issued notice to the petitioners and conducted the proceedings under the Act and ultimately vide order dated 25.5.2021 allowed application preferred by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and directed the petitioners to remove the obstructions on the way claimed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 at their own cost and also directed the petitioners not to cause any obstructions to the present respondent Nos.3 and 4 in having ingress and egress to their fields even by way of bullock cart, tractor, etc. 3.2 The aforesaid order dated 25.5.2021 was challenged by way of a revision application under Section 23 of the Act by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector, Botad. 3.2 The aforesaid order dated 25.5.2021 was challenged by way of a revision application under Section 23 of the Act by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector, Botad. However, even the Deputy Collector, Botad also vide order dated 5.8.2021 confirmed the order dated 25.5.2021 passed by the Mamlatdar, Botad. 3.3 Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 25.5.2021 passed by the Mamlatdar, Botad and order dated 5.8.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector, Botad, the petitioners have preferred the petition. 4. Mr. Panam Soni, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the original application made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 under Section 5 of the Act does not bear any date nor any cause of action, and therefore, the plaint was a defective plaint. 4.1 Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that it was the duty of the Mamlatdar to examine respondent Nos.3 and 4 on oath, as provided under Section 9 of the Act and to ascertain about the cause of action as well as the date on which the cause of action has arisen. However, the Mamlatdar, Botad has failed to perform that obligation cast upon him under Section 9 of the Act and without following the procedure prescribed in Section 9 of the Act straightaway believed respondent Nos.3 and 4 and without putting anything in writing as provided under Section 9 of the Act conducted the proceedings under the Act and passed order dated 25.5.2021, which was confirmed by the Deputy Collector, Botad. 4.2 Mr. Soni, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that since the mandatory requirement stipulated in Section 9 of the Act is not followed by the Mamlatdar, Botad, the proceedings cannot be said to be in accordance with law, and therefore, the entire proceedings are bad and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Meet Pansuria, learned advocate for the original plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 5. Mr. Meet Pansuria, learned advocate for the original plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein, submitted that while passing the order dated 25.5.2021 the Mamlatdar, Botad in para 2 observed that he has carried out the spot inspection and found that the road was blocked within the period of six months, and therefore, as per Section 8 of the Act, the Mamlatdar has powers to determine the date on which the cause of action has arisen and accordingly he was of the view that cause of action has arisen within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action arose within a period of six months from the date on which the suit was filed. Mr. Pansuria, learned advocate also submitted that as far as the defect in the plaint is concerned, the same was tried to be cured by way of written submissions by explaining the date on which the cause of action has arisen. 6. As per the direction of the Court, Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP has called for the Record and Proceedings from the Mamlatdar, Botad and the Deputy Collector, Botad. From the record, Mr. Kanara, learned AGP points out that the Mamlatdar, Botad has not acted in accordance with law and has not examined the plaintiffs on oath nor any affidavit of the plaintiffs is found on record stating anything about the cause of action or date on which the cause of action has arisen. 7. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record of the case, including the record and proceedings of the Mamlatdar Court Act Case. I have also perused the record available before the Court in the form of annexures to this petition. On perusal of the record, I found that the application preferred by respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the plaintiffs of Mamlatdars Court Act suit, did not mention the date on which the cause of action had arisen nor anything is mentioned in the plaint about the cause of action. Section 7 of the Act reads as under : “7. On perusal of the record, I found that the application preferred by respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the plaintiffs of Mamlatdars Court Act suit, did not mention the date on which the cause of action had arisen nor anything is mentioned in the plaint about the cause of action. Section 7 of the Act reads as under : “7. Suits commenced by plaint - All suits under this Act shall be Commenced by a plaint, which shall be presented to the Mamlatdar in open Court by the plaintiff, and which shall contain the following particulars :- Contents of plaint – [a] the name age, religion, caste, profession and place of abode of the plaintiff. [b] the name, age, religion, caste, profession and place of abode of the defendant; [bb] the nature and situation of the impediment errected and the situation of the lands which are adjacent to each other, and the nature of the relief sought; [c] the nature and situation of property of which possession for use if sought, or the Mature of the injunction to be granted, as the case may be; [d] the date on which the cause of action arose; [e] the circumstances out of which the cause of action arose; and [f] a list of the plaintiff's documents, if any, and of his witnesses, if any, showing what evidence is required from each witness, and whether such witnesses are to be summoned to attend, or whether the plaintiff will produce them on the day and at the place to be fixed under section 14.” 7.1 In Section 7 of the Act, the mandatory contents of the plaint are mentioned. However, if the plaint does not contain the mandatory contents and is preferred by way of an informal application, in that case, even informal petitions / plaints can also be treated as plaint per Section 8 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act reads as under : “8. Informal petitions to be treated as plaints - Where a petition not in the form of a plaint is presented to the Mamlatdar and the subject matter thereof appears to fall within the scope of section 5, the Mamlatdar shall explain to the person presenting the petition the nature of the reliefs afforded by this Act, and shall inquire whether the petitioner desires to obtain relief thereby. If the petitioner expresses a desire so to obtain relief, the Mamlatdar shall endorse the desire on the petition which shall thereupon be deemed to be a plaint presented under section 7.” 7.2 Once if any petition which is not in consonance with the mandatory requirements of Section 7 of the Act is preferred by an aggrieved party, then it is for the Mamlatdar to treat the same as plaint after following the procedure as provided in Section 8 of the Act. If the applicants express their desire to obtain relief as prescribed in Section 8 of the Act, then it is the duty of the Mamlatdar to endorse that desire on the petition and thereafter the petition can be treated to be a plaint as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar is required to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act, which read as under : “9. Examination of Plaintiff on oath - Where the plaint does not contain the particulars specified in section 7 or is unnecessarily prolix, the Mamlatdar shall forthwith examine the plaintiff upon 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 the circumstances appear reasonable. 10. Plaint to be subscribed and verified - When the plaint is presented and has, if necessary, been treated in the manner specified in section 9, the Mamlatdar shall require the plaintiff to subscribe and verify the plaint in his presence, in open Court in the manner following, or to the like effect : "1. A. B., the plaintiff, do declare that what is stated in this plaint is true to the best of my information and belief." 11. Endorsement by the Mamlatdar – [1] The Mamlatdar shall endorse the plaint to the effect that it was duly subscribe and verified. A. B., the plaintiff, do declare that what is stated in this plaint is true to the best of my information and belief." 11. Endorsement by the Mamlatdar – [1] The Mamlatdar shall endorse the plaint to the effect that it was duly subscribe and verified. [2] Procedure where plaintiff cannot write (2) Where the plaintiff cannot write, the verification may be written for him in open Court and he shall affix his mark to his name in token of the authenticity of the verification and the Mamlatdar shall, in such case record that the verification was made in his presence at the request of the plaintiff, and that his mark was so affixed.” 7.3 As per Section 9 of the Act, when a plaint does not contain the particular facts as stated in Section 7 of the Act, what the Mamlatdar is required to do is to examine the plaintiff on oath and to ascertain from him the particulars specified in Section 7 of the Act. In the instant case, the date on which the cause of action arose and the circumstances out of which the cause of action has arisen were not stated by the plaintiff in the plaint. Therefore, the Mamlatdar was expected to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the Act by examining the plaintiff on oath and after the plaintiff is examined on oath, the Mamlatdar was required to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 10 of the Act by making necessary verification as prescribed under section 10 of the Act and thereafter the Mamlatdar was expected to endorse the plaint to the effect that it was duly subscribed and verified. On perusal of record, it transpires that the Mamlatdar has not performed any of the duty which is cast upon him by way of Sections 8 to 11 of the Act and has straightaway, only at the time of passing the order, has stated in the order that he has done the spot inspection and he is of the view that the road has been blocked within the period of six months before the suit was preferred by the plaintiffs. The Mamlatdar has merely made a reference that by exercising the powers available to him under Section 8 of the Act, he has treated the application preferred by the plaintiffs to be a plaint. The Mamlatdar has merely made a reference that by exercising the powers available to him under Section 8 of the Act, he has treated the application preferred by the plaintiffs to be a plaint. 7.4 When the statute has prescribed the specific procedure for treating any informal application as plaint, it is the duty of the Mamlatdar to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act and his subjective satisfaction must reflect on papers by following the due procedure prescribed under the Act. Merely by recording his subjective satisfaction about the fact that the suit was preferred in respect of a cause of action, which has arisen within a period of six months before filing of the suit, is not sufficient. Further on perusal of the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar, Botad it also transpires that the Mamlatdar has not framed any issues, which is also a mandatory requirement as per Section 19 of the Act. 7.5 Since the Mamlatdar has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act while deciding the Mamlatdars Courts Act Case No.1 of 2021, the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 25.5.2021 cannot be sustained. Same way, the order 5.8.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector, Botad in M-Court Revision/BTD/9/2021 confirming order passed by the Mamlatdar, Botad also cannot be sustained, and therefore, both the orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, order dated 25.5.2021 passed by the Mamlatdar, Botad in Mamlatdar Court Case No.1/2021 and order dated 5.8.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector, Botad in M-Court Revision/BTD/9/2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, since both the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector are quashed and set aside only on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the Act is not followed, the matter is remanded to the Mamlatdar, Botad for hearing and decide the application afresh preferred by the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 7.6 The Mamlatdar, Botad is directed to start remand proceedings with a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the order by issuing notice to all the interested parties and he is further directed to hear and decide the remand case strictly by adhering to the provision of the Act, including the provisions of Sections 5 to 11 and Section 19 of the Act. The Mamlatdar, Botad is directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of 4 months thereafter and the Mamlatdar, Botad is directed to pronounce the decision within a period of six months from today and latest by 31.10.2022. The Mamlatdar is directed to consider the material available on record before him independently. 7.7 It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and the Mamlatdar is directed to carry out the proceedings in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity to all the concerned parties without being influenced by the fact that the Court has quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 25.5.2021 and 5.8.2021 passed by the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector. 8. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. However, there shall be no order as to costs.