Failure to accord hearing to stakeholders in Mamlatdar’s Courts Act proceedings violates principles of natural justice.

The Petitioners challenged orders passed by the Tahsildar (Respondent No. 3) and the Sub Divisional Officer (Respondent No. 2) in proceedings initiated by Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906

Although the Petitioners were stakeholders in the land dispute, they were not arrayed as parties in the original application.

However, the Tahsildar suo-moto added Petitioner No. 1 as a respondent in the final order dated 13.09.2022 without serving notice or providing a hearing.

Respondents 4 to 9 argued that Petitioner No. 1 had knowledge of the proceedings as he purportedly signed a panchnama (site inspection report), a claim the Petitioners denied.

The Appellate Authority concurrently upheld the Tahsildar’s order.

1. Whether the failure to array and hear necessary stakeholders in a proceeding under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, vitiates the resulting order due to a violation of natural justice

2. Whether the mere alleged signature of a party on a panchnama exempts the authority from the requirement of providing a formal notice and opportunity of hearing

The Court primarily applied Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, which empowers the Mamlatdar’s Court to adjudicate disputes regarding boundaries and rights of way

The Court emphasized the Principles of Natural Justice, asserting that the office of the Mamlatdar is defined as a "Court" under the Act and is legally bound to afford a full opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders

It further noted that procedural transparency requires authorities to record separate statements of stakeholders rather than relying solely on contested signatures on a panchnama

The Court observed that the Respondent authorities acted in a "very mechanical manner" by passing orders against individuals who were never formally made parties to the litigation

The Court rejected the argument that a signature on a panchnama constitutes sufficient notice, noting that if a document is adverse to a party’s interest, it is improbable they would sign it voluntarily without a formal statement being recorded

The Court found that the Tahsildar and SDO failed to apply a "judicious mind" because they ignored the title clause of the original complaint, which omitted the Petitioners, yet they included Petitioner No. 1 in the final adverse order without explanation

This deprivation of a hearing was held to be a fundamental procedural lapse

The High Court quashed and set aside the orders dated 13.09.2022 and 29.12.2023

The matter was remanded to the Tahsildar (Respondent No. 3) with directions to: (i) permit Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 to add the Petitioners as parties

(ii) issue fresh notices and provide a full opportunity of hearing

and (iii) decide the matter on its own merits without being influenced by previous findings or the disputed panchnama

Interim relief was extended until the final disposal of the remanded application