Mamlatdar must strictly comply with statutory procedures and personally conduct site inspections under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act.

The Respondent No. 1 (original plaintiff) filed a suit under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906, alleging that the Petitioner (original defendant) obstructed the natural flow of water across his agricultural field.

Previously, in 2016, Respondent No. 1 had initiated similar proceedings against other neighbors, which were deregistered after revenue authorities found no obstruction in 2017.

In the present suit filed in 2022, the Mamlatdar allowed the application, and the Deputy Collector subsequently dismissed the Petitioner's revision application.

The Petitioner challenged these concurrent orders, arguing that the suit was barred by limitation and that the Mamlatdar failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements under the Act.

1. Whether the Mamlatdar committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining a suit that failed to disclose the date of the cause of action as required under Section 7 of the Act.

2. Whether the suit was barred by the six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 5(3) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, given that the alleged obstruction was known to the plaintiff as early as 2017.

3. Whether the Mamlatdar’s reliance on a panchnama from a previous proceeding, without conducting a fresh site visit or examining witnesses, rendered the order legally unsustainable.

Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906, which empowers the Mamlatdar to remove impediments to natural water flow, provided the suit is brought within six months of the cause of action.

Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Act mandate that a plaint must contain specific particulars, including the date the cause of action arose, and if deficient, the Mamlatdar must examine the plaintiff on oath to rectify these defects.

The Court followed the precedent in Bhaskabhai Lakshmishanker Mehta v. Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Zalavadiya (2011), affirming that failure to satisfy the requirements of Section 5(3) regarding limitation deprives the Mamlatdar of jurisdiction.

Section 19 implies a duty on the Mamlatdar to personally verify site conditions.

The Court observed that the Respondent No. 1's plaint was fundamentally flawed as it omitted the specific date of the cause of action, a mandatory requirement under Section 7(d).

Evidence from 2017 indicated the plaintiff was aware of the alleged obstruction years before filing the 2022 suit, suggesting a potential bar under the six-month limitation period of Section 5(3).

The Mamlatdar failed to invoke Section 9 to examine the plaintiff on oath regarding these deficiencies before proceeding.

Furthermore, the Mamlatdar improperly relied on a 2017 panchnama from a separate proceeding where the Petitioner was not a party, violating principles of natural justice and failing the requirement for an independent site verification under the Act.

The Deputy Collector also erred by failing to address these jurisdictional and procedural lapses during the revision.

The High Court quashed and set aside the Mamlatdar’s order dated 14.12.2022 and the Deputy Collector’s order dated 04.09.2023. The matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar for fresh adjudication. The Mamlatdar is directed to personally visit the site for a new panchnama under Section 19, ensure compliance with Sections 7, 8, and 9, and verify the limitation under Section 5(3) before deciding the merits within six months.