Mamlatdar’s statutory spot-inspection and recording duties are mandatory and cannot be delegated.

Respondent Nos. 4–12 instituted a suit under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, on 18 September 2024 against the petitioner concerning an alleged obstruction/dispute relating to the property.

The Mamlatdar issued notice, caused a panch-rojkam and map to be prepared through the Talati-cum-Mantri, and allowed the suit by order dated 8 July 2025. The petitioner’s revision before the City Deputy Collector was dismissed on 23 September 2025. Subsequently, notices dated 28 November 2025 and 12 December 2025 were issued for implementation of the order.

The petitioner challenged these orders, alleging that the original one-page application did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Sections 7–11 of the Act, that necessary parties were not joined, and that the Mamlatdar unlawfully delegated the statutory functions of spot inspection and preparation of the memorandum/map to the Talati-cum-Mantri.

It was also submitted that the dispute involved civil rights and that a civil suit was pending; however, the High Court ultimately decided the matter on procedural grounds.

1. Whether the Mamlatdar could entertain and decide the informal one-page application without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 7–11 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, including proper particulars, examination of the plaintiff on oath, verification and endorsement of the plaint?

2. Whether the Mamlatdar could delegate to the Talati-cum-Mantri the statutory functions of personally inspecting the disputed property, hearing the parties on the spot, and preparing or signing the requisite memorandum under Section 19(2)–(3) of the Act?

3. Whether the orders of the Mamlatdar and the revisional authority were liable to be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law?

The Court applied Sections 7–11 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906. Section 7 prescribes the mandatory particulars of a plaint; Section 8 permits an informal petition to be treated as a plaint only after the Mamlatdar explains the available relief and endorses the petitioner’s desire to seek it; Section 9 requires the Mamlatdar to examine the plaintiff on oath where material particulars are missing; and Sections 10–11 require verification and endorsement of the plaint.

Section 19(2) requires the Mamlatdar, after notice to and in the presence of the parties, to personally inspect the disputed property and record a memorandum of relevant facts; Section 19(3) requires the Mamlatdar personally to make or sign the memorandum of the substance of the evidence and briefly record reasons for the finding.

These requirements were held to be mandatory, not directory. The Court relied on Nagarbhai Bhikabhai Kedva v. Deputy Collector, Banaskantha, 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 245352, which held that the Mamlatdar’s statutory functions under Section 19 cannot be bypassed or delegated and that procedural non-compliance requires remand to the Mamlatdar.

The Court found that the application instituted by Respondent Nos. 4–12 lacked material particulars required by Section 7, including the names of all affected parties, the date of the cause of action and the circumstances giving rise to it.

Although Section 8 permits an informal petition to be treated as a plaint, the Mamlatdar was required to follow the statutory steps under Sections 8–11, including examination of the plaintiffs on oath, completion of the missing particulars, verification and endorsement. The record showed that none of these mandatory steps had been undertaken.

Further, the Talati-cum-Mantri, rather than the Mamlatdar, conducted the spot inspection and prepared the panch-rojkam and map. The inspection was also conducted without summoning or securing the presence of the parties. This violated Sections 19(2) and 19(3), which impose a personal and non-delegable obligation upon the Mamlatdar to inspect the property, hear the parties on the spot, and prepare or sign the memorandum.

Since the proceedings were fundamentally defective, the High Court considered it appropriate to set aside the orders and remit the matter without examining the merits of the underlying property or pathway dispute.

The matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar for fresh decision in accordance with law after providing all parties adequate opportunity to participate and lead evidence.

Respondent Nos. 4–12 were directed to file a fresh suit complying with the mandatory statutory requirements within one week, and the Mamlatdar was directed to decide it preferably within eight weeks thereafter.

The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits, directed the parties to maintain status quo until final disposal, and made the Rule absolute to that extent.