Mamlatdar cannot review or re-agitate adjudicated issues under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act without express statutory authority.

The petitioners (agriculturists) were sued by private respondents under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, regarding the alleged obstruction of a natural rain-water stream

On 28.07.2020, the Mamlatdar rejected the suit, a decision later confirmed by the Deputy Collector in revision on 28.01.2021

Despite these concurrent findings, the Mamlatdar subsequently entered the petitioners' field with police, removed structures, and dug a sewer

Following this, the Mamlatdar issued letters dated 08.06.2021 and 29.06.2021 on the same set of facts, directing the parties to maintain "status quo," effectively re-opening the adjudicated matter

The petitioners challenged these subsequent orders under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Mamlatdar has the jurisdiction to re-agitate or review the same issue between the same parties once the proceedings have attained finality under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906?

2. Whether a quasi-judicial authority possesses inherent powers of review in the absence of express statutory provision?

The court applied the maxim Nemo debet lis vexari pro eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice for the same cause)

It relied on the principle from Patel Narshi Thakarshi v. Praduman Singhji and Chunibhai v. Narayan Rao, which established that the power of review is not an inherent power and must be expressly conferred by law

The court further applied the doctrine from Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, asserting that a quasi-judicial authority's order passed without review jurisdiction is a nullity

Regarding maintainability, the court applied the Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks exception, allowing writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedies when the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction

The Court reasoned that the Mamlatdar's subsequent orders for status quo were illegal because the dispute had already attained finality through previous concurrent orders by the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector

Since the private respondents did not challenge the higher authority's (Deputy Collector) order, the Mamlatdar became functus officio regarding those specific facts.

The Court observed that the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act conducts summary proceedings and does not grant the Mamlatdar the power to "review" or "rectify" his own finalized orders

The Court found the Mamlatdar’s actions arbitrary, noting that taking a diametrically opposite view on identical facts without a material change in circumstances or statutory backing constitutes an abuse of the process of law and an impermissible overreach of jurisdiction

The Court quashed and set aside the Mamlatdar’s orders dated 08.06.2021 and 29.06.2021 and made the Rule absolute