Concurrent findings of fact in summary proceedings under Mamlatdars’ Courts Act warrant no writ interference.

The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed an application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, seeking removal of obstructions to a traditional access road passing through Survey Nos. 86 and 87 (owned by the appellants) to reach their agricultural lands (Survey Nos. 83, 84, and 85)

On 01.04.2025, the Mamlatdar, following a site inspection, found physical obstructions like fencing, wooden planks, and crop plantation, and concluded a traditional road existed

The Deputy Collector affirmed this order

The appellants challenged these orders via a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 05.01.2026, holding that the findings were well-considered and based on evidence

The appellants then preferred this Letters Patent Appeal, contending that the road was not on the village map, alternative routes existed, and the Panchnama was contradictory

1. Whether the Mamlatdar properly exercised jurisdiction under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, in recognizing a traditional right of way and ordering the removal of obstructions

2. Whether the findings of fact regarding the existence of the road and the absence of a viable alternative route were perverse or procedurally flawed

3. Whether the summary nature of proceedings under the Act of 1906 precludes the adjudication of substantive easementary rights

Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, which empowers the Mamlatdar to remove impediments to agricultural land or customary ways

Section 19 of the Act, which authorizes personal site inspections and the recording of a memorandum of facts

Section 22, noting that Mamlatdar orders are summary and subject to the final determination of rights by a competent Civil Court

Principles established in Mrs. Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha v. Janardhan Mahadeo Kalan and Vankatlal G. Pittie v. Bright Bros. (Pvt.) Ltd., which limit High Court interference in concurrent findings of fact unless perversity is shown

The Court observed that the Mamlatdar conducted a personal inspection and prepared a Panchnama on 08.11.2024 in the presence of all parties, which is a valid procedure under Section 19

While the appellants argued that the village map did not explicitly show the road, the Court noted that the map showed a way up to the boundary and the previous owner's testimony confirmed the road’s historical use since ancestral times

The Court rejected the argument regarding alternative routes, noting that the suggested alternative through Village Naroli was proven unusable and unsupported by documentary evidence

The Court held that minor contradictions among the Panchas did not negate the physical evidence of the disputed road found on the ground

Consequently, the Court found that the Mamlatdar’s decision was a "well-considered decision within its jurisdiction" based on an appreciation of evidence

The Court held that the Mamlatdar followed the prescribed legal procedure and that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the traditional way were not perverse

The Court clarified that since the proceedings under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act are summary in nature, the appellants remain at liberty to establish their easementary or substantive rights through a regular civil suit

Pending civil applications were also disposed of