Mamlatdar lacks jurisdiction to issue directions against third parties not joined or heard in the original proceedings.

Respondent No. 4 initiated Rasta Case No. 54 of 2020 before the Tahsildar, Parner, under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, alleging that the Petitioners obstructed his access (Vahivat rasta) to Gut No. 1327

A panchnama conducted on January 16, 2023, revealed no existing path through the Petitioners' land (Gut No. 1328) but noted a path through Gut No. 1234

On March 29, 2023, the Tahsildar dismissed the application for failing to establish a case under Section 5; however, the Tahsildar included "unwarranted" directions in Clause Nos. 2 and 3 of the order, effectively granting Respondent No. 4 the right to use a path through Gut No. 1234

Respondent No. 11, the owner of Gut No. 1234, challenged these directions via Revision Application No. 362 of 2023, asserting he was never made a party to the original proceedings or the panchnama

The Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) allowed the revision, finding the Tahsildar exceeded his jurisdiction

The Petitioners subsequently filed the present Writ Petition challenging the SDO's order

1. Whether the Tahsildar exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, by issuing directions for the use of a path through land owned by a person who was not a party to the proceedings

2. Whether the SDO’s order setting aside the Tahsildar’s unauthorized directions suffered from any legal infirmity

The court primarily applied Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, which empowers the Mamlatdar (Tahsildar) to address specific obstructions to existing roads or watercourses but limits the scope of such administrative inquiries

The court also relied on the principle of natural justice, which mandates that no adverse order can be passed against a property owner (Respondent No. 11) without notice or an opportunity for a hearing

Furthermore, the court emphasized that administrative orders under the 1906 Act are limited in scope and do not finalize civil rights, which remain the jurisdiction of Civil Courts

The High Court observed that while the Tahsildar correctly dismissed Respondent No. 4’s primary application for failing to prove obstruction under Section 5, he erred in law by issuing additional directions regarding Gut No. 1234

The court noted that these directions caused serious prejudice to Respondent No. 11, the owner of Gut No. 1234, who was neither impleaded in the Rasta Case nor served with notice during the spot inspection

The court reasoned that the Tahsildar lacked the authority to grant a right of way through a third party's land under the guise of dismissing an application against different parties

Consequently, the court found that the SDO acted correctly in exercising revisional jurisdiction to strike down the Tahsildar’s "unwarranted" and "unauthorized" directions

The Court held that the Tahsildar exceeded his jurisdiction under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, by issuing directions affecting a non-party’s property rights

The court clarified that the scope of proceedings under the Act is limited and directed that the parties remain free to approach Civil Courts to crystallize their respective civil rights