JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J. 1. This Intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition challenging the orders dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act’ 1906 (for short, “the Mamlatdars’ Act” or “the Act’ 1906”) as also the order passed in Revision Case No.02 of 2024 dated 07.08.2024 by the Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Valsad. The prayer therein was to restrain the respondent No.1 (herein) from entering into the land belonging to the petitioners bearing Survey Nos. 247 and 248 (old Survey Nos. 195 / 1 and 195 / 2) at Village Vejalpur, Taluka and District Valsad. 2. The dispute is about the alleged right of way granted to the respondent No.1 from the lands belonging to the petitioners / appellants herein. The challenge to the order passed by the Mamlatdar is on the ground that the respondent No.1 was already using the way from the land belonging to one Shri Rahulbhai Desai situated at Survey No.246 (old Survey No. 193/3) for entering into their own land for the purpose of agricultural operations for the last many years. The respondent No.1 had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Shri Rahulbhai Desai dated 22.08.2023, wherein it was agreed that the respondent No.1 shall be utilizing the way passing through the land belonging to Shri Rahulbhai Desai. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid way already being used by the respondent No.1 is passing besides the west side boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner bearing Survey No.248, adjacent to the land of Rahulbhai Desai. It was the specific stand of the original petitioners (appellants herein) before the learned Single Judge that the respondent No.1 in the application filed under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Act did not disclose the date when the cause of action to sue arose, which is the mandatory pre-condition to maintain the application under the said provision. It was argued before the learned Single Judge that though an apot inspection was carried out by the Circle Officer under the instructions of the Mamlatdar and the notice was issued to the petitioners, but Panchnama had not been prepared in the presence of the petitioners nor their signatures were obtained. 4. It was argued before the learned Single Judge that though an apot inspection was carried out by the Circle Officer under the instructions of the Mamlatdar and the notice was issued to the petitioners, but Panchnama had not been prepared in the presence of the petitioners nor their signatures were obtained. 4. Further, there is a clear cut breach of Section 19(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Act and in absence of the mandatory procedure being followed by the Mamlatdar in the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act’ 1906, the order passed by it is to be declared void ab initio and be quashed. Therefore, the Deputy Collector had rejected the revision by a non-speaking order, and hence cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. Mr.Maulin Raval, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Rutvij M. Bhatt, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, before the Writ Court, however, in rebuttal, had contended that the orders passed by the two authorities concurrently holding that the respondent No1. had a right of way through the land of the petitioners, which had been obstructed by them, cannot be interfered within the scope of the writ jurisdiction. The contention was that pursuant to the application filed by the respondent No.1, the Mamlatdar, acting swiftly, directed the Circle Officer to carry out a Panchnama of the spot and record the statements of the neighboring farmers. On receipt of the report of the Circle Officer, the Mamlatdar took cognizance of the proceedings; the petitioners were also summoned and they had participated in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar. 6. The contention of the petitioners therein that no Panchnama had been carried out by the competent authority or their signatures had not been obtained, had been disputed with the contention that the Circle Officer carried out the spot inspection and prepared a Panchnama in the presence of the two Panchas. After recording the statements of the Panchas and relying upon the material and documents produced before the Mamlatdar, the order dated 08.02.2024, subject matter of challenge herein, had been passed by the Mamlatdar. 7. After recording the statements of the Panchas and relying upon the material and documents produced before the Mamlatdar, the order dated 08.02.2024, subject matter of challenge herein, had been passed by the Mamlatdar. 7. It was the case of the respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge that the petitioners had suppressed a very crucial fact that they were also party to the Six Party MOU executed in the year 2011 between six farmers of the adjacent lands, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the way which was in existence passing from the eastern side of the field of Rahulbhai Desai going towards the fields of rest of the farmers, shall be maintained as there was no other alternative way available except the said way. It was submitted that the petitioners with a view to mislead the Court, did not produce the said MOU. Moreover, the neighboring farmers had recorded their statements before the Mamlatdar that the disputed way was in existence since last more than 15 years and except the said way, there is no other way to access the land of respondent No.1. The petitioners had obstructed the only way to access the land of respondent No.1 by making a wired fencing illegally and contrary to the MOU signed by it. 8. The contention, thus, was that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.1 herein was of removal of obstruction and clearing of way so as to restore the existing way for exercise of right of the respondent No.1. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that the agricultural lands of respondent No.1 and that of the petitioners herein are adjacent to each other. However, the case of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that there is no road passing through their farm and as such, there was no question of creating any obstruction. 10. A perusal of the order passed by the Mamlatdar indicates that it is recorded therein that the Mamlatdar himself visited the site and arrived at a conclusion that there was a right of way through the land of the petitioners, which had been blocked and further that the respondent No.1 had no access to his own land. 10. A perusal of the order passed by the Mamlatdar indicates that it is recorded therein that the Mamlatdar himself visited the site and arrived at a conclusion that there was a right of way through the land of the petitioners, which had been blocked and further that the respondent No.1 had no access to his own land. The Mamlatdar also relied upon the report submitted by the Circle Officer supported by the statements of the Panchas and the map prepared by the Circle Officer, to support its finding that there was a customary or long standing right of way, which had been obstructed by the petitioners. 11. It seems that the owner of the adjacent land, namely Rahulbhai Desai who allegedly had entered into an MOU with the respondent No.1, also filed an affidavit before the Mamlatdar in support of the claim of the respondent No.1. The learned Single Judge records that the said witness was not cross-examined by the petitioners herein. 12. Another farmer having adjacent land, namely Binaben Desai had also filed affidavit before the Mamlatdar supporting the existence of the right of way as claimed by the respondent No.1 to state that the said road was being used by the respondent No.1 and other farmers since many years and there was no alternative way except the subject way. 13. The learned Single Judge also records that the petitioners were signatories to the Six Party MOU entered into between the neighboring landowners, wherein they have agreed upon between them to keep the right of way open for the parties to the MOU to access to their respective fields. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge refused to interfere in the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities holding that no perversity, illegality or error can be found therein. 14. Ms. Sonal D. Vyas, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Mamlatdar, while passing the order impugned dated 08.02.2024, did not scrupulously follow the provisions of the Mamlatdars’ Act. It was argued that though the order impugned records that the Mamlatdar had visited the site in question to ascertain the correct status, but there is no site inspection report duly signed by the Mamlatdar, a copy whereof was required to be given to the parties in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar. 15. It was argued that though the order impugned records that the Mamlatdar had visited the site in question to ascertain the correct status, but there is no site inspection report duly signed by the Mamlatdar, a copy whereof was required to be given to the parties in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar. 15. The Panchnama prepared by the Circle Officer was drawn at the very inception or initiation of the proceedings and cannot be relied upon in absence of any inspection report drawn by the Mamlatdar. The contention is that the reference to the statements on affidavits of the neighboring farmers is neither here nor there, when there is no other material to corroborate the same. In absence of any cogent evidence on record to establish the existence of right of way from the lands of the petitioner in use for a long time, no relief under the Mamlatdars’ Act could be granted. 16. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the categorical case of the petitioners before the Writ Court about an MOU having been entered into between the respondent No.1 and Shri Rahulbhai Desai dated 28.08.2023, wherein respondent No.1 had agreed to use the right of way from the land belonging to the said farmer, has been completely ignored and the reliance placed by the respondent No.1 over the MOU of the year 2011, has been wrongly believed to hold that there existed a customary right or way from the land of the petitioners for a long time. The subsequent MOU substituted the old one, even if existed as per the claim of the respondent No.1. 17. It was also the case of the petitioners before the Mamlatdar that fencing upon the boundary of the land belonging to the petitioners in survey Nos.247 and 248 (old Survey Nos.195 / 1 and 195 / 2), adjacent to Survey No.246 bearing old Survey No.193 / 3 belonging to Rahulbhai Desai, is existing since the year 2016 and 2021; respectively. Had the Mamlatdar conducted a site inspection in a proper manner, the said fact would have come into light. 18. It was the case of the petitioners before the writ Court that out of Block No.195, land admeasuring 01-21-25 sq.mtrs. has been converted into non-agricultural land in the year 2021, which has been numbered as Block No. 195 / 2 (new Block No.248). 18. It was the case of the petitioners before the writ Court that out of Block No.195, land admeasuring 01-21-25 sq.mtrs. has been converted into non-agricultural land in the year 2021, which has been numbered as Block No. 195 / 2 (new Block No.248). During the said process, when the petitioners got their lands measured by the office of the District Inspector of Land Records (Valsad) on 22.09.2021, fencing work was carried out in the year 2021 in accordance with the said measurement. The application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Act filed by the respondent No.1 is not maintainable, inasmuch as, the cause of action on account of any hindrance or impediment has not been disclosed therein. 19. Mr.Maulin Rawal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Rutvij M. Bhatt, the learned advocate for the respondent No.1, however, defended the judgment of the learned Single Judge and also the order passed by the Mamlatdar for the reasoning given therein. 20. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record, we may simply note that indisputably, the spot-inspection report of the inspection made by the Mamlatdar, as stated in the order impugned, had not been prepared. 21. Though, there is no dispute about the fact that a Panchnama was drawn by the Circle Officer, which has also been relied by the Mamlatdar, but as is evident, the said Panchnama has been used by the Mamlatdar in the order impugned to substantiate its own observations made during the course of the spot inspection. 22. The learned Single Judge has completely ignored the specific case of the petitioners that no notice of the date fixed for spot inspection by the Mamlatdar was given to the petitioners nor they were aware of the same. No opportunity, as such, had been granted to the contesting parties to confront the Mamlatdar on its report. The observation made by the Mamlatdar in its order about the spot inspection made by him are the basis of its finding. The Mamlatdar, though stated to have visited the site to conclude that there was a right to way through the land of the petitioners, which had been blocked and further that the respondent No.1 had no other alternative to access to his own land, but there is no report of the Mamlatdar on record. The Mamlatdar, though stated to have visited the site to conclude that there was a right to way through the land of the petitioners, which had been blocked and further that the respondent No.1 had no other alternative to access to his own land, but there is no report of the Mamlatdar on record. The said findings, thus, are bereft of any cogent material on record. 23. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Patel Bhavikkumar Praveenbhai & Ors. V. Harmanbhai Maganbhai Bhoi & Ors. [Letters Patent Appeal No.1558 of 2024 dated 21.10.2024] , taking note of the provisions of the Act’ 1906 has elaborately discussed about the scope of Section 5(1) and the mandate to the Mamlatdar to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act’1906. 24. It was noted that though the proceedings before the Mamlatdar are of summary nature, due care, however, is to be taken to examine the claim of the plaintiffs and ensuring attendance of witnesses in accordance with Section 19 of the Act’ 1906. It was also noted that under Section 19, the Mamlatdar not even possess the power to examine the witnesses but also to inspect the disputed property / land so as to determine the dispute in a logical manner. It is required to maintain the record of the proceedings by making or signing of the memorandum of substance of the evidence of each witness examined by him and briefly record his reasons for his findings. 25. Relevant paragraph Nos. ‘10’ to ‘15’ of the said decision are to be noted hereinunder:- “[10] Taking note of the above, we may take note of the provisions of Act, 1906, which confers powers on the Mamlatdar within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. Section 5(1) reads as under:- "5. Powers of Mamlatdars Courts. 25. Relevant paragraph Nos. ‘10’ to ‘15’ of the said decision are to be noted hereinunder:- “[10] Taking note of the above, we may take note of the provisions of Act, 1906, which confers powers on the Mamlatdar within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. Section 5(1) reads as under:- "5. Powers of Mamlatdars Courts. (1) Every Mamlatdar shall preside over a Court, which shall be called a Mamlatdar's Court, and which shall, subject to the provisions of Sections 6 and 26, have power, within such territorial limits as may from time to time be [fixed by the State Government,- (a) to remove or cause to be removed any impediment, erected otherwise than under due authority of law, to the natural flow in a defined channel or otherwise of any surface water naturally rising in or falling on any land used for agriculture, grazing, trees or crops, on to any adjacent land, where such impediment causes or is likely to cause damage to the land used for such purpose or to any such grazing trees or crops thereon;] (b) to give immediate possession of any lands or premises used for agriculture or grazing, or trees or crops, or fisheries, or to restore the use of water from any well, tank, canal or water-course, whether natural or artificial used for agricultural purposes to any person who has been dispossessed or deprived thereof otherwise than by due course of law, or who has become entitled to the possession or restoration thereof by reason of the determination of any tenancy or other right of any other person, not being a person who has been a former owner or part-owner within a period of twelve years before the institution of the suit of the property or use claimed, or who is the legal representative of such former owner of part-owner: Provided that, if in any case the Mamlatdar considers it inequitable or unduly harash [to remove or course to be removed any such impediment or] [These words were inserted by Bombay 66 of 1954, Section 2 (1) (ii).], to give possession of any such property or to restore any such use to a person who has become entitled thereto merely\by reason of the determination of any such tenancy or other right, or if it appears to him that such case can be more suitably dealt with by a Civil Court, he may is his discretion refuse to exercise the power aforesaid, but shall record in writing his reasons for such refusal. (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] [These words, brackets and figures were inserted by Bombay 66 of 1954, Section 2 (2) (a).], 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 impendment, or] [These words were inserted by Bombay 66 of 1954, Section 2 (2) (b).] 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] [These words were inserted by Bombay 66 of 1954, Section 2 (2) (a).], from causing or attempting to cause any further such disturbance or obstruction. (3) Suit to be filed within six months. - No suit shall be entertained by a Mamlatdar's Court unless it is brought within six moconfnths from the date on which the cause of action arose. (4) Cause of action. - The cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen on the date on which the [impediment to the natural flow of surface water or the] [These words were inserted by Bombay 66 of 1954, Section 2 (3) (a).] dispossession, deprivation or determination, of tenancy or other right occurred, or on which the [impediment] [This word was inserted by Bombay 66 of 1954, Section 2 (3) (b).], disturbance or obstruction, or the attempted [impediment or] [These words were inserted by Bombay 66 of 1954, Section 2 (3) (c).] disturbance or obstruction, first commenced. [11] A reading of Section 5(1) of the Act, 1906 indicates that the Mamlatdar has been conferred with power to remove or cause to be removed any impediment, erected otherwise than under due authority of law on any land used for agriculture, grazing, trees or crops, on to any adjacent land, where such impediment causes or is likely to cause damage to the land used for such purposes or to any such grazing trees or crops thereon. Clause (b) contained in sub- section (1) of Section 5 empowers the Mamlatdar to give immediate possession of any lands or premises used for agriculture or grazing, or trees or crops, etc., or to any person who has been dispossessed or deprived thereof otherwise than by due course of law, or who has become entitled to the possession or restoration thereof. Sub-Section (2) of Section 5 empowers Mamlatadar to issue an order of injunction. The limitation for filing suit under the Act, 1906 is provided in Section 5 (3) of the Act, 1906. The cause of action has been narrated in sub section (4) of Section 5. [12] We may further refer to the provisions of Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 of the Act, 1906 which contain the procedure for filing of the plaint, examination of the plaintiff on oath, subscription and verification of the plaint, rejection or return of the plaint and the procedure when plaint is admissible, including the attendance of the witnesses. [13] A careful reading of the said provisions indicate that though the procedure for exercise of power under Section 5 of the Act, 1906 is summery in nature but a comprehensive adherence to the procedure is necessary to make an inquiry for the exercise of the power under Section 5 of the Act, 1906, to remove or cause to be removed any impediment, obstruction and to given immediate possession of the land to any person entitled to possession or to restoration thereof. [14] It is, thus, clear that even in the summery proceedings to be conducted by the Mamlatadar, due care has to be taken to examine the claim of the plaintiffs and ensuring attendance of witnesses. Section 19, as a whole, is further relevant to be noted hereinunder:- 19. Points to be decided by Mamlatdar at hearing. [14] It is, thus, clear that even in the summery proceedings to be conducted by the Mamlatadar, due care has to be taken to examine the claim of the plaintiffs and ensuring attendance of witnesses. Section 19, as a whole, is further relevant to be noted hereinunder:- 19. Points to be decided by Mamlatdar at hearing. (1) On the day fixed, or on any day to which the proceedings may have been adjourned, the Mamlatdar shall, subject to the provisions of Section 16, proceed to hear all the evidence that is then and there before him and to try the following issues, namely: (aa) If the plaintiff avers that the natural flow of surface water from his, land has been impeded by any erection raised by the defendant causing damage or likelihood of damage to the plaintiff's land or to any grazing, trees or crops thereon- (1)whether surface water flowed, in a defined channel or otherwise naturally from plaintiffs land on to defendant's land; (2)whether the defendant erected any impediment to such flow, otherwise than under due authority of law; (3)whether such erection impelled such natural flow of water within six months before the suit was filed; (4)whether such impediment has caused or is likely to cause damage to plaintiffs land or to any grazing, trees or crops thereon;) (a)If the plaintiff ever that he has been unlawfully disposed of any property or deprived of any use- (1) whether the plaintiff or any person on his behalf or through whom he claims was in possession or enjoyment of the property or use claimed up to any time within six months before the suit was filed; (2) whether the defendant is in possession at the time of the suit and, if so whether he obtained possession otherwise than by due course of law; (b) if the plaintiff avers that he is entitled to possession of any property or restoration of any use by reason of the determination of any tenure or other right of the defendant in respect thereof- (1) whether the defendant is in possession of the property or in the enjoyment of the use by a right derived from the plaintiff or from any person through whom he claims (2) whether such right was determined at any time within six months before the suit was filed; (3) whether the defendant is other than a person who has been a former owner or part- owner within a period of twelve years before the institution of the suit of the property or use claimed, and other than the legal representative of such former owner or part-owner; (c)If the plaintiff avers that he is still in possession of the property or in the enjoyment of the use, but that the defendant disturbs or obstructs, or has attempted to disturb or obstruct, him in his possession or use- (1)whether the plaintiff or any person in his behalf is actually in possession or enjoyment of the property or use claimed; (2)whether the defendant is disturbing or, obstructing, or has attempted to disturb or obstruct, him in such possession or enjoyment; (3)whether such disturbance or obstruction, or such attempted disturbance or obstruction, first commenced within six months before the suit was filed. (2) Power of Mamlatdar to examine other witnesses and inspect property in disputes. - The Mamlatdar may, after due notice to, and in the presence of, the parties summon and examine as a witness any person who has not been summoned or produced, and may call for and cause to be proved any document which has not been applied for or produced, by either of the parties, where he considers it expedient in the interest of justice so to do, and may, if he thinks fit, make a personal inspection of the property in dispute in the presence of, or after due notice to, the parties. [He shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum after hearing the parties on the spot if present, of any relevant facts observed at such inspection. The memorandum shall form part of the record of the case.] [These words were added by Bombay 11 of 1928, Section 2, First Schedule.] (3)Record of Proceedings by Mamlatdar. - The Mamlatdar shall with his own hand make or sign a memorandum of the substance of the evidence of each witness as the examination of the witness proceeds, and briefly record his reasons for his finding. (4)Orders to be passed by Mamlatdar upon decisions in favour of plaintiff and defendant. - Where the Mamlatdar's finding upon the issues is in favour of the plaintiff, he shall make such order, not being in excess of the powers vested in him by Section 5, as the circumstances of the case appear to him to require; and where his finding is in favour of the defendant, he shall dismiss the suit. In either case the costs of the suit, including the cost of execution, shall follow the decision. [15] A careful reading of Section 19 further indicates that the Mamlatdar has even power to examine the witnesses and inspect the property in question so as to determine the dispute in a logical manner and is also required to maintain the record of the proceedings by making or signing a memorandum of the substance of the evidence of each witness as examined by him, and briefly record his reasons for his finding. 26. 26. In the said case, the Coordinate Bench taking note of the fact that the Mamlatdar in deciding the issue of right of way claimed by the petitioners therein, had relied on the Panchnama which did not contain any averment of any inspection made by the Mamlatdar. The stand of the respondents therein that the Panchnama was drawn in the presence of all the parties and the statement of both sides were recorded by the Mamlatdar on the same day when the Panchnama was prepared, was disbelieved, noticing that no assumption could be drawn about any fact, which is not stated or is not reflected from the document itself. 27. It was held therein that a right to way is a valuable right given to an agriculturist and and it would also cause prejudice to the fellow agriculturalist / landholder from whose land, right of way is to be granted. A full fledged inquiry strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1906 is required to be conducted by the Mamlatdar. In the facts of that case, since no proper inquiry was conducted and the said aspect of the matter was ignored by the learned Single Judge, while quashing the orders impugned, the matter was required to be remitted for fresh proceedings. 28. The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed heavy reliance on the observation made in the said decision that the order passed by the Mamlatdar cannot be sustained in absence of any categorical statement of the inspection carried out by the Mamlatdar while drawing the Panchnama. 29. Drawing analogy from the said decision, it was argued that the facts of the present case are almost similar in nature, inasmuch as, in the present case, though there is a reference of the site inspection made by the Mamlatdar and his own observations have been made basis to pass the order impugned, but there is no spot inspection report on record. 30. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.1 could not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants herein / the writ petitioners. 31. In view of the above, we find it a fit case for interference. 32. 30. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.1 could not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants herein / the writ petitioners. 31. In view of the above, we find it a fit case for interference. 32. While setting aside the judgment and order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, the orders dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Mamlatdar and the order passed in Revision Case No.02 of 2024 dated 07.08.2024 by the Collector and Sub-divisional Magistrate, Valsad are hereby quashed. While reviving the original proceedings, namely Case No.Mcourt/VLS/10/2023 registered on the application moved by the respondent herein, the matter is remitted back for fresh adjudication to the Mamlatdar, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act’ 1906, keeping in mind the principles stated hereinabove, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 33. It goes without saying that due care shall be taken by the Mamlatdar while making inspection of the site in question and recording of the evidence of the witnesses. 34. With the above, the present appeal as also the writ petition stand allowed. It is clarified that the Mamlatdar shall decide the matter independently without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove on merits of the case of the parties. Pending civil application stands disposed of, accordingly.