DINESHBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL Vs. DY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 ( for short "the Act" ). Under the said Act the powers are exercisable by Mamlatdar under Section 5, interalia, for removal of obstruction complained to have been made by obstructionist against access to the agricultural land of the aggrieved person. Against the orders under Section 5, the Collector has been invested with the revisional jurisdictional under Section 23 of the Act.

(2.) THE petitioner finding himself aggrieved by action of respondent obstructing access to his agricultural land being Block No.1785 owned by him, through a strip of land connecting Block No.1791 owned by respondent, approached the Mamlatdar with an application under Section 5 of the Act. By an order dated 12.11.2010 Annexure "C" petitioner's application was allowed. The aggrieved respondent invoked the jurisdiction of revisional power of the Collector (delegated to the Deputy Collector), who, by his order dated 8.2.2011 Annexure "D", remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar after holding that the Record & Proceedings were not produced and opportunity to the respondent was not given, evidence on record was not taken into account and the respondent was not asked to remain present during panchnama. He also posed a question as to whether the parties belonged to one family and that issue was also ordered to be resolved. In the said order, the Deputy Collector also directed the Mamlatdar to hear all the parties as also panchnama be drawn in presence of District Inspector of Land Record ( for short "DILR" ) and decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the record of the case.

(3.) AFTER making local inspection, the Mamlatdar recorded finding of fact stating that Block No.1785 has been reconstituted from Survey No.2588/1 and 2587. He also found the existence of a wall on its north, east and west and also noted the nature of existing construction. He also noted that an access to Block No.1785 was obstructed by putting a wall. It was also stated that in the development permission, an area of 7.50 mtr was required to be kept open and that area was covered and obstructed and that there is no access available to Block No.1785.