32 WP-3306-2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3306 OF 2023 [Smt. Sindubai Bhimrao Jadhav and Anr. ..vs.. The Sub Divisional Officer and Ors.] __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr S. R. Puddatwar, Adv. h/f Mr D. M. Kale, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr H. R. Dhumale, AGP for Respondents/State. Mr S. I. Ghatte, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE , J. DATE : 22 nd JANUARY, 2025. 1. Having heard both sides at length, it appears that the respondent No.3 had filed a complaint against the petitioner making grievance that the approach way to his filed which runs from the boundary of petitioners’ field, has been obstructed. This complaint in the form of letter dated 22.07.2021 was submitted to the Tahsildar/Mamlatdar, Karanja. Perusal of the same indicates that it is not in the form as required under Section 7 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, and therefore, the Mamlatdar was under obligation to inform the respondent No.3 as regards the remedy and relief afforded by Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. The Mamlatdar is supposed to enquire with the person like respondent No.3 whether he is desired to obtain such relief and if so, the same has to be endorsed on the petition and thereupon the said petition is deemed to be a plaint presented under Section 7. 2. The parties before me including learned A.G.P., the respondent No.3 failed to point out that such endorsement has been made by the Mamlatdar on the application dated 22.07.2021 filed by respondent No.3. 2025:BHC-NAG:726 32 WP-3306-2023 2 3. It, however, appears that the respondent No.3 has filed plaint which is sans the presentation date. Further, the plaint appears to be written on a draft with blank places filled in. The tendency to use draft has resulted into putting in plaint all the impediments that were quoted in a draft application, which includes “obstruction by excavating drainage/putting sticks/by mixture of soil and stones/by cultivating the land/by encroachment.” (ukyh [kksnqu@dkV;k ykoqu@nxM ekrhpk cka/k Vkdqu@ofgokVhP;k jLR;koj isj.kh d#u@vfrØe.k d#u jLrk can dsyk-) Thus, it is not clear as to what is the exact nature of the impediment by which the approach road to respondent No.3’s field was obstructed. 4. Having not complied with the requisite provisions under Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, the order passed by the Mamlatdar is apparently erroneous and would not stand scrutiny of law. The Sub Divisional Officer has also failed to consider these vital provisions and dismissed the revision. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 19.10.2022 passed in Rev. Case No.MCA-05/Takli Khurd/12/2021-2022 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Karanja, is hereby quashed and set aside. The order dated 01.11.2021 passed in Rev. Case No.MCA-5/Takli Khurd/48/2020- 2021 by the Tahsildar, Karanja is restored on file for consideration afresh in accordance with law and what has been stated in the body of order. 5. Parties shall appear before the Tahsildar/Mamlatdar, Karanja on 06.02.2025. Mamlatdar Court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four months from the date of appearance. JUDGE TAMBE