JUDGMENT : 1. With consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Hence, RULE. Learned AGP Ms. Nirali Sarda waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents – State. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the petitioner, learned advocate Ms. Manavi Dhamle for learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati for Nanavati & Co. for the respondent no. 3 and learned AGP Ms. Sarda for the respondents – State. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 26.03.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector, Dhangadhra in Revision Case No. 1 of 2021 and order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the Mamlatdar, Dhangadhra in Mamlatdar Case No. 15 of 2020. 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under:- 4.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is owner and occupier of the land bearing Survey No. 202 (old Survey No. 98) situated at Village: Pratappur (Chandrsar) Taluka: Dhangdhra whereas the respondent no. 3 is the co-owner of the land bearing Survey No. 186 (Old Survey No. 97 paiki 1) situated at the western side of petitioner’s land. 4.2. On 03.07.2020, the respondent no. 3 has instituted suit being Case No. 15 of 2020 against the present petitioner under section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act for removal of erection/break- water at the western portion of the petitioner’s land i.e. Survey No. 202 (Old Survey No. 98). 4.3. According to the case of the petitioner, it was alleged that the petitioner has impeded the flow of the natural water by such erection which has resulted into overflow of water in respondents’ as well as other 100 acres of land adjacent to the land of the respondents. 4.4. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the present petitioner appeared before the Mamlatdar and raised preliminary objection about non-joinder of party. As according to the petitioner, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited was necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the suit which was not impleaded and in the past it was alleged that the water was overflowing because of improper installation of sub-canal for which representations were also made in the past. However, the aforesaid preliminary objections were overruled vide order dated 19.09.2020 and thereafter, panch rojkam was carried out on 06.11.2020. However, the aforesaid preliminary objections were overruled vide order dated 19.09.2020 and thereafter, panch rojkam was carried out on 06.11.2020. As per the panch rojkam, it had come out that the said impediment were atleast two years old and therefore, according to the petitioner the suit filed by the respondents was beyond a period of limitation of six months as provided under section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act. 4.5. Thereafter, the suit was proceeded as per the procedure under the Mamlatdar Courts Act and ultimately the Mamlatdar, Dhangadhra vide his order dated 17.12.2020 allowed the suit and restrained the petitioner from creating break-water. 4.6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a Revision Application No, 1 of 2021 before the Deputy Collector, Dhangadhra. However, the said revision application was rejected vide order dated 26.03.2021 and therefore, being aggrieved by both the orders passed by the Mamlatdar, Dhandaghra as well as Deputy Collector, Dhangadhra, the present petition is preferred. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch appearing for the petitioner made following submissions: 5.1. That the Mamlatdar has exercised the powers despite the fact that the limitation provided in the Mamtardar Courts Act is 6 month as it comes out from the panch rojkam that the impediment was created before a period of about 2 years and therefore, the suit was time-barred and despite that the same was entertained and impugned order was passed and even the Deputy Collector also failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and therefore, the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector both have committed an error in ignoring the vital aspect of delay. 5.2. Learned advocate Mr. Buch further submitted that the aforesaid panchnama which was drawn in presence of the party, though it is specifically stated by the panch witness that the impediment was created before two years, the same was not considered at all by both the authorities and therefore, both the orders are erroneous as it has overlooked a vital evidence in favour of the petitioner. 5.3. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. 5.3. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Buch that even otherwise the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged impediment as right from 2016, it is the case of the petitioner that such overflowing has taken place on account of faulty design of sub-canal by Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited for which the petitioner has made representations in the past also and therefore, for an act of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited which has resulted into overflowing of water, the petitioner could not have been held responsible and no relief could have been granted against the petitioner to remove the aforesaid impediment. 5.4. Learned advocate Mr. Buch further submitted that the Mamlatdar has committed a grave error by observing in the impugned order that though on account of heavy rain, pala (alleged impediment) is broken and therefore, there is no water- logging or overflowing at the time when the order was passed. However, the Mamlatdar also restrained the petitioner not to create any further obstacles in future. According to learned advocate Mr. Buch such relief is beyond the powers conferred to the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdar Courts Act and such relief could have been prayed or granted only in a Regular Civil Suit as powers available to the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdar Courts Act and more particularly as per Section 5 of the Act is only for removal of any impediment and there are no powers of declaration of not to create it in future and therefore, though it was noted by the Mamlatdar that the impediment is not there on account of heavy rain, he ought not to have issued any further direction of not to create any impediment in future. Such declaratory powers vest with Civil Court only and those powers are beyond the scope of powers which can be exercised under the Mamlatdar Courts Act. 5.5. Except the above submissions, no other submissions were made by learned advocate Mr. Buch for the petitioner. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Damle for learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati for the respondent no. 3 vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that both the authorities have rightly considered the provisions of law and the observations made and directions given by both the authorities are well within the powers conferred to the Mamlatdar as per the Mamlatdar Courts Act. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Damle for learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati for the respondent no. 3 vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that both the authorities have rightly considered the provisions of law and the observations made and directions given by both the authorities are well within the powers conferred to the Mamlatdar as per the Mamlatdar Courts Act. She further submitted that the further direction to the petitioner to not to create any obstacle was issued in view of the pleadings and prayer made in the suit as it was apprehended by the present respondent – original plaintiff before the Mamlatdar that the petitioner may construct the impediment again. She further submitted that once the Mamlatdar has followed the procedure prescribed under the Mamlatdar Courts Act in a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, this Court has very limited scope of interference in the findings of the facts arrived at by the Mamlatdar and conferred by the Deputy Collector and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector and therefore, this Court may dismiss the petition. 7. Learned AGP Ms. Nirali Sarda appearing for the respondent – State defended the orders passed by both the authorities i.e. Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector and submitted that both the authorities have rightly passed the impugned orders which are well within their powers. She submitted that powers under section 5 (2) of the Mamlatdar Courts Act provides for power to issue injunction and power to issue injunction would include power to issue permanent injunction. She relied upon the language of section 5 (2) of the Mamlatdar Courts Act and submitted that in view of language of section 5 (2) of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, the Mamlatdar has power to issue permanent injunction and therefore, the orders impugned passed by the Mamlatdar and confirmed by the Deputy Collector cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. 8. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. As far as the submissions of learned advocate Mr. 8. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. As far as the submissions of learned advocate Mr. Buch as regards the delay in filing the suit or that the panch rojkam indicates that the impediment (pala) created before two years are concerned, the aforesaid submissions cannot be considered at this stage for the reason that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner could have challenged the panch rojkam as it is well settled that the panch rojkam could not have been used for any other purpose than assessing the ground situation and therefore, any additional information coming from the panch rojkam was not relevant. However the record indicates that the preliminary objection was taken only in respect of non joinder of party and not about the panchrojkam and further the record indicates that at the relevant point of time, the Mamlatdar had adopted the procedure prescribed under the Mamlatdar Courts Act as the issues were framed and witnesses also were examined. 9. As submitted by learned advocate Mr. Buch, under section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, the Mamlatdar does not have power to issue permanent injunction or to give any declaratory relief and only Civil Court can do so. However, a clause scrutiny at section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act would indicate that section 5 (1) provides that the Mamlatdar has power to remove any impediment or to give immediate possession whereas section 5(2) provides the Mamlatdar the powers to issue injunction. However, a clause scrutiny at section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act would indicate that section 5 (1) provides that the Mamlatdar has power to remove any impediment or to give immediate possession whereas section 5(2) provides the Mamlatdar the powers to issue injunction. Section 5 (2) reads as under:- 5(2) Power to issue injunction - The said Court shall also, subject to the same provisions, have power within the said limits, where any impediment referred to in subsection (1) is erected, or an attempt has been made to erect it, or when any person is otherwise than by due course of law disturbed or obstructed, or when an attempt has been made so to disturb or obstruct any person, in the possession of any lands or premises used for agriculture or grazing or trees, or crops or fisheries, or in the use of water from any well, tank, canal or water-course, whether natural or artificial used for agricultural purposes or in the use of roads or customary ways thereto to issue an injunction to the person erecting or who has attempted to erect such impediment, or causing, or who has attempted to cause, such disturbance or obstruction, requiring him to refrain from erecting or attempting to erect any such impediment or, from causing or attempting to cause any further such disturbance or obstruction. 10. Section 5 (2) as can be seen from the above provides that the Mamlatdar also has power to issue an injunction to the person causing or who has attempted to cause such obstruction, requiring him to refrain from causing or attempting to cause such further disturbance or obstruction and therefore, the language of section 5 (2) makes it clear that to prevent any such obstruction in future also, the relief that is granted by the Mamlatdar vide impugned order can be granted by the Mamlatdar as the same is well within his powers under section 5 (2) as the power to issue injunction includes the powers to issue permanent injunction. 11. Further on perusal of the impugned order, I found that the Mamlatdar has considered the merits of the matter and after appreciating the material on record and after following the due procedure prescribed under the Act, the impugned direction restraining the petitioner from constructing any further pala in future was issued and the said order was rightly confirmed by the Deputy Collector. As far as the procedure adopted by the Mamlatdar is concerned, it is not the case of either party that the Mamlatdar has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act. Further though it was contended by learned advocate Mr. Buch that as per the panch rokam, the pala was constructed before two years and therefore, the suit was beyond period of limitation of six months is concerned, the aforesaid submission is required to be rejected out-rightly for the reason that the Mamlatdar while passing the impugned order was conscious about the fact that the obstacle (pala) which was sought to be removed by way of Mamlatdar Courts Act Suit had already broken because of rain water and therefore, at the time when the suit was being decided, there was no question of issuing any direction to remove the obstacle by removing the pala but by exercising the powers under section 5 (2) of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, the Mamlatdar restrained the petitioner from creating any further obstacles/obstructions in disposal of the rain water and therefore, when the pala was already broken down due to rain water, there is no direction to remove the pala and therefore, whether the pala was constructed before six months or before two years is irrelevant as he has not issued any direction to remove the same but has restrained this petitioner from constructing any further obstruction. The aforesaid submission has no relevance with the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar and therefore, the said contention is required to be rejected out-rightly. 12. Even otherwise, the aforesaid fact that the pala was constructed before two years was only a passing remarks which was not required in the panch rojkam as the panch rojkam is a fact-sheet depicting the ground position existing on the date and time at which it has been carried out and it ideally should not contain anything other than the ground reality. If the panch rojkam goes beyond the ground reality, then the rest of the material in the panch rojkam is required to be overlooked completely. In the instant case, as the pala was not in existence on the date on which the suit was decided. If the panch rojkam goes beyond the ground reality, then the rest of the material in the panch rojkam is required to be overlooked completely. In the instant case, as the pala was not in existence on the date on which the suit was decided. Whether it was in existence since six months or two years could have been said to be of some significance had any direction to remove the same being given by the Mamlatdar but in the instant case, in absence of there being any direction to remove the obstruction and considering the fact that such disputed question of fact were not decided by the Mamlatdar by arriving at any conclusion about the time since the pala was constructed. Such submission cannot be considered to have some affect over the final outcome of the suit. 13. Further, when the Mamlatdar has not given any finding about whether the pala (obstruction) was constructed before six months or before two years, in that case, the same is a matter of evidence. Therefore, it is always open for the petitioner to file a suit whereby such issues which would require elaborate evidence can be tested. As far as the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector are concerned, on perusal of the aforesaid orders, I do not see that any of the authorities have committed any error. 14. Resultantly I do not see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Mamlatdar or Deputy Collector. However, as it is the petitioner’s case that the water logging has taken place on account of construction of canal by the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the observation made by the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector, it is always open for the petitioner to file a civil suit and in case, if any civil suit is preferred by the petitioner, the trial Court may consider the same on its own merits and evidence that may be led by the parties without being influence or observation made by the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector as well as by this Court. 15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the petition fails. The same is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.