Gujarat High Court
Narsinh Momaya Chad vs State Of Gujarat on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12695 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NARSINH MOMAYA CHAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KARNA H DHOMSE(6684) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. GRISHMA M AHUJA(7170) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. SURBHI BHATI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of filing present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
(a) Your Lordship may be pleased Quash and set aside the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Deputy Collector, Bhuj confirming the Mamlatdar's order (ANNEXURE-A), by issue/issuing the writ of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or any other writ;
(b) Your Lordship may be pleased to stay Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined implementation and operation of the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Deputy Collector, Bhuj confirming the Mamlatdar's order (ANNEXURE-A),
pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition.
(c) Declare that the application filed by Respondent No.4 was barred by limitation and not maintainable in law.
(d) Pass such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
(e) Your Lordship may be pleased quash and set aside the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the Opponent No.3 Mamlatdar, Bhuj-Gramya (ANNEXURE-B Colly), by issue/issuing a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or any other writ; and
(f) Your Lordship may be pleased to stay implementation and operation of the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the Opponent No.3 - Mamlatdar, Bhuj-Gramya (ANNEXURE-B Colly), pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this Petition.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Karna Dhomse for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Surbhi Bhati for the respondent-State.
3. It is a specific case of the applicant that he is a permanent resident of Sumrasar Village and having agricultural land of regular survey no.84/3 and 85 admeasuring 3 Hectares 70 Are and 0 Guntha whereas respondents are the owner and occupiers of the survey no.87/1 and 87/2. They used to utilize the way since last more than 65 years and on Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the southern side of the said road survey no.82/1 and 84/2 is situated whereas on the northern side survey no.112/2, 118/1 and 117/2 are situated and ahead of the said road on the northern side survey no.117/1 and survey no.116/1 are situated whereas on southern side survey no.84/3 and survey no.85 are available. The respondents used to go through the said way since last many years. It is alleged that applicants have created impediment in the smooth functioning and movement of the respondents by way of creating obstruction on the road, and therefore, an application.
4. For the sake of convenience and brevity, applicant herein Narsinh Momaya Chad shall hereinafter be referred as original defendant, the respondent no.4 Shri Arvindbhai Bharmalbhai Chad shall hereinafter be referred to as original plaintiff and the Mamlatdar's Courts Act shall hereinafter be referred as 'the Act.'
5. Learned advocate Mr. Dhomse appears for the applicant submits that respondent no.4/original plaintiff had filed suit under the provision of Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act against the applicant specifically contending that respondent has got right of way passing through the field of the applicant, the respondent and his forefathers are using and utilizing the said way since last 65 years, and recently, the said road was blocked by the applicant herein. Based upon which Mamlatdar concerned had carried out proceedings, and ultimately, at the end of the day, passed order against the present applicant by allowing the said suit with a specific direction to open the said way which is closed by the applicant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, applicant herein has preferred revision application before the Deputy Collector, the Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Deputy Collector has also dismissed the said revision application, and therefore, present application is filed to assail these two orders. He submits that applicant herein had filed a detailed reply and objected the maintainability of the suit by raising specific defence that as per provision of the statute if any lawful right of the way is closed by creating impediment upon the smooth functioning of the movement of the farmer, in that event, within a period of 6 months from the date of cause of action generated, proceedings are required to be initiated. He further submits that if Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the application preferred by the respondent herein before the Mamlatdar, in that event, it would have been found out that the so-called cause of action has been generated on 22.06.2020 whereas suit has been preferred on 15.03.2021. These two dates crystallized the position of fact that proceedings have been initiated by the plaintiff after lapse of period of six months, therefore, application preferred by the respondent no.4 is required to be dismissed by the Mamlatdar on the count of limitation only. It is a statutory provision of law that parties have got valuable right to agitate cause of concerns immediately after occurrence, and period of limitation of six months, those proceedings cannot be initiated after lapse of period of six months. Therefore, suit itself is barred by law of limitation. Those particular facts have already been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court concerned. Despite the said fact, the Mamlatdar had proceeded with the suit and ultimately decided in favour of the plaintiff. If Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the operative part of the order, in that event, it would have been found out that no specific observations and findings have been given by the Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Mamlatdar so far as issue of law of limitation is concerned.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Dhomse further submits that Mamlatdar has to decide the application preferred under provision of Section 5 application in a summary manner as proceedings are of summary nature, but for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the suit, Mamlatdar has to follow the provision of Civil Procedure Code. Herein this case on hand, evidence of witnesses have been recorded, but then after issues have not been framed and straight away suit had been decided. He further submits that during the course of recording of evidence, more particularly, in the cross- examination of the plaintiff/respondent no.4, a very pertinent question was asked by the learned advocate for the applicant that as per the map of DILR one way is shown on the western side of the regular survey no.276/1 passing through the survey no.87/1 and 87/2, if the said will be opened, in that event, he has any objection or not? The witness has given answer that he has objection if the said way is opened.
7. He further submits that at the time of recording evidence both the parties have led the evidence and copy of the DILR map had not been produced by either party. He submits that copy of the village map is available on record which crystallized the position of the fact that there is no existing way passing through the survey no.85 and 86 to the field of the respondent no.4. He further submits that if Hon'ble would make a cursory glance upon the evidence of the witnesses, in that event, it would have been found out that in evidence of almost all witnesses those particular facts have been stated in a very categorical terms that, in fact in the tracing of the map, existing way is not mentioned, but the plaintiffs and their Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined family members are using the same way since last many years and solely on this count the order had been passed.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Dhomse further submits that the authority concerned has not considered the evidence available on record in true spirit and proper perspective, and without considering and appreciating the material available on record decided the issue involved in the matter. He further submits that at the time of entertaining the suit preferred by the plaintiff undue weightage had been given to the non-important documents and materials whereas important materials have been discarded by the authority concerned which ultimately leads authorities to reach to the wrong conclusion, and therefore, the said order had been challenged before the Deputy Collector by way of preferring revision application. Despite the fact that those particular facts were also brought to the notice of the higher authority, they reiterated the said reasons and dismissed the revision application preferred by the petitioners. He further submits that at the time of deciding the revision application, the Deputy Collector has not framed the issues. Therefore, in absence of any concrete evidence and material, solely on the count of the statements made by the neighbours, the order has been passed by the Mamlatdar, and subsequently confirmed by the Deputy Collector. The said view adopted by the authority concerned is not correct view, and therefore, requires to be overturned. At the time of deciding the right of way of parties concerned, authority concerned has to verify about the availability of the alternate existence way. He further submits that there is an alternative way also found available and despite the said fact the order is passed by the authority concerned. The said view adopted by the authority is Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined not just, fair and reasonable. Therefore, the orders passed by the revenue authorities are required to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition, and the matter may be remanded to the authority concerned to decide afresh.
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Surbhi Bhati appears on behalf of respondent-State has objected the present application with vehemence and submits that the authority concerned has passed just, fair, reasonable and legal order based upon the sound principle of law and after considering and appreciating all those documents and material available on record, therefore, the said order does not require to be interfered at the hands of this Hon'ble Court at this juncture.
10. She further submits that it is a specific case of the petitioners that since last more than 65 years all the petitioners and other stakeholders (villagers) had been using and utilizing the said way. During the course of recording evidence, all the witnesses have stated those particular facts on oath specifically stating that since last more than 65 to 70 years though the said way was used by them and as such in the tracing of village map the said particular way was not mentioned, but at the place the said way is in existence. The said witnesses were cross-examined by the defence in a great detail. Nothing contrary could be elicited from the evidence of those witnesses rather on the contrary it would have been found out that a village road "Gamtal" is passing through "Shedhha" of the petitioners (defendants) and respondent (plaintiff) and their ancestors are using the said way since last many decades, and by creating obstructions on the road the petitioner has created impediment in the smooth movement of Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the respondent (plaintiff), and therefore, immediately within no time they have approached the concerned revenue authority by way of preferring application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act. During the course of recording evidence, those particular facts have come on record that except the said way, there is no alternate existing road/way available in the area through which persons can reach to their field, and if the said way is not opened/cleared within time frame schedule, in that event, it is practically difficult on the part of the stakeholders/villagers/agriculturists to reach their fields to do agricultural activities, and therefore, Mamlatdar concerned had paid visit and made spot inspection of the area, circle inspector had carried out Panchnama and recorded statements of the witness concerned. The cumulative effect of all those evidence available on record crystallized the position of the fact that by way of creating obstructions on the way, petitioner herein has created impediment in the smooth movements of the respondents/original plaintiffs, and therefore, Mamlatdar concerned has passed order describing the factual aspects and discussing the evidence available on record in threadbare manner by assigning justifiable reasons and passed just, fair and reasonable order, the Deputy Collector has confirmed the same by dismissing the revision.
11. Learned AGP further submits that there is concurrent findings of the facts on the part of the revenue authorities, and generally in writ jurisdiction, more particularly, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Hon'ble Court need not to have to interfere when the concurrent findings of the facts have been recorded by the revenue authorities. The orders passed by both the revenue Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined authorities are just, fair, legal and in consonance with the statutory provision of law, and therefore, do not require to be interfered at this juncture at the hands of this Hon'ble Court.
12. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, verifying the record and proceedings, it transpires from the the record that respondent no.4/original plaintiff had instituted a suit under the provision of Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act against the applicant/original defendant. It further transpires from the record that respondent no.4/original plaintiff is an owner of survey no.87/1 and 87/2 and doing agricultural work upon the said field. Since last more than 65 years respondent no.4 and his forefathers are using and utilizing the said way situated upon the field on the southern side of the said survey no.82/1 and 84/2 situated whereas on the northern side of the survey nos.112/2, 118/1 and 117/2 are available, and little ahead upon the said road on the northern side survey no.117/1 and 116/1 situated whereas on the southern side of said road survey no.84/3 and survey no.85 situated. In short, all the agricultural fields of respective parties are situated in a vicinity area and adjacent to each other.
13. The petitioner/original defendant is the owner and occupant of the survey no.84/3 and 85. He has erected fencing line in between the pathway and by doing so he has created impediment in the smooth movement and functioning of the respondent no.4/original plaintiff. Therefore, respondent /original petitioner has preferred an application before the Mamlatdar on 25.06.2020 by narrating all those facts and prayed that immediately direct the respondent plaintiff to remove the said fencing. Based upon which notice was issued Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined and then after panchnama was also drawn. They have also preferred an application before the police at earlier point of time. The police did not entertain his plea stating that dispute pertains obstruction in entering into the field, and therefore, no act of criminality could have been found out, therefore, they have to approach the Mamlatdar, and therefore, they have approached the Mamlatdar, based upon which notice was issued, and then after panchnama was also drawn, then after, time and again, the matter gets adjourned. After lapse of certain period of time, it was brought to the notice of the respondent no.4/original plaintiff that the said application could not be entertained due to certain technical reasons, and he has to prefer fresh application, and therefore, on 15.03.2021, another application preferred by narrating those particular facts. In fact, the application has already been preferred within time-frame schedule before the competent authority, but due to certain technicalities the said application withdrawn with a liberty to file fresh application, and therefore, there is no delay in preferring the application, and therefore, the Mamlatdar concerned has rightly entertained the application.
14. It is also found out from the record that immediately after submission of application, proceedings have been initiated by the Mamlatdar. The circle inspector was directed to carry out map of the area and prepare the panchnama as well as record the statements of the neighbours. The petitioner/original defendant raised objection about maintainability of proceedings and challenged the cause of the suit by way of filing detailed reply, then after, trial proceeded with and ultimately at the end of the day, after considering and appreciating all those documents and material available on Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined record, the Mamlatdar concerned has allowed the suit. It is also found out from the record that at the time of deciding the issue Mamlatdar concerned has elaborately discussed all evidences and materials available on record in a great detail by assigning appropriate findings and justifiable reasons. I have also gone through the observations made by the Mamlatdar and prima- facie of the opinion that immediately after occurrence of the incident, an application is preferred by the respondent no.4 before the police and then after suit under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act had been preferred before the Court of the Mamlatdar. Trial could not have got substantial progress and time and again matter gets adjourned and then after technical issues have been generated, and therefore, the said suit withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh, and a fresh application was preferred based upon which proceedings have been initiated. At the time of preferring second application, those particular facts have been narrated which crystallized the position of fact that immediately after erection of fencing in the field by the applicant, the respondent no.4 initiated the proceedings based upon the generation of cause of action, therefore, Mamlatdar concerned has rightly decided that there is no delay in preferring the said application, and therefore, those proceedings are not required to be terminated solely on the count that there was delay in preferring the application, and therefore, I am of the opinion that the point of issue raised by the applicant herein about the delayed registration of the suit has no legs to stand for a moment, as material available on record crystallized the position of fact that immediately within no time the respondent no.4/original plaintiff had instituted the proceedings.
Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
15. So far as, second bone of contention raised by the learned advocate for the applicant is concerned that in the DILR map the said way has not been shown, and therefore, respondent no.4/original plaintiff has not got right to seek relief to pass through the said way. I have verified the record and proceedings, more particularly, village map produced by the applicant which crystallized the position of fact that the agricultural fields of the parties are situated adjacent to each other, and a main road is also mentioned passing through the farms of the number of villagers. The way mentioned in the plaint is not found out in tracing of the village map, and the said fact is also stated by the plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit that the said way is a small "Gamtal" road and used by the plaintiff, his family members and ancestrals since last more than 7 decades, and there are so many small ways available in the villages through which villagers are passing through/going to their fields. Those small patches are generally being used by the villagers for the purpose of ferrying their agricultural equipments and bullock carts, and those small patches are not mentioned in the map that does not mean that the said small patches/roads are not in existence, and the said particular fact is proved by the plaintiff by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. Immediately after registration of the suit, circle inspector had gone to the place, made spot inspection and prepared a map and drawn a panchnama. He had also recorded the statement of the neighbours. The cumulative effect of all those evidences and material available on record, crystallized the position of fact that due to erection of the wire fencing upon the said particular patch an impediment had been created in the Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined smooth movement/functioning of the plaintiff by the defendants, and for the purpose of entering into their field respondent no.4/original plaintiff has to move through altogether different route which is 6-7 kms. longer than the existing route, therefore, practically, it is not feasible on the part of the respondent no.4/original plaintiff to use and utilize the said way. In the report of the circle inspector, those particular facts have come on record that recently the petitioner has constructed wire fencing in the said field.
16. Learned advocate for the petitioner has emphatically submitted that a very pertinent question was being asked to the plaintiff by the counsel of the defendant stating that as per the map of the DILR on the western side of the regular survey no.276/1 one way which is closed, if once again reopened which would reach to the survey no.87/1 and 87/2, in that event, plaintiff has an objection or not? wherein he has replied in a negative manner. The learned advocate has emphatically submitted that the said evidence available on record crystallized the position of the fact that there is alternate way available on record and respondent no.4/original plaintiff does not wish to use and utilize the said way.
17. I have read the said evidence wherein plaintiff has given a reply in a very categorical manner that at earlier point of time there was an old way passing through the survey no.85 and 86, at this juncture, the said way is at all not in existence, and he has objection if the said way is to be opened. By bare perusal of the above-stated evidence available on record shows that for the sake of asking a particular question was being asked. It is not a case of the applicant/petitioner that there is a way available at the place and despite the said fact Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined instead of passing through the said route respondent no.4/original plaintiff has demanded a new way from the field of the applicant/petitioner. The respondent no.4/original plaintiff simply gave a negative reply that he is not ready and agreeable to pass through the said road that does not mean that as such there is existing way despite the said fact respondent no.4/original plaintiff does not wish to use and utilize the said way. This is one of the suggestion put forward which he denied. Therefore, on the basis of the denial to the said suggestion, the existing right of the parties cannot be decided. If that was the intention on the part of the defendant that the said way would be reopened, in that event, first the said way is required to be reopened and then after he has to act in a particular manner. Herein this case on hand, a question in form of a suggestion was being asked and based upon which dispute pertaining to right of way cannot be decided. At the time of deciding the suit, all the points have been elaborately discussed and decided by the Mamlatdar. The evidences have been discussed exhaustively in a threadbare manner. I have also verified those papers and found that detailed cross-examination of the witnesses have been made. Learned advocate appears for the defendant, but nothing contrary could be elicited from the evidence of witnesses. It is found out from the evidence available on record that village road "Gamtal" is passing through Sendhha of the defendant, and plaintiff as well as his ancestors are using and utilizing the said "Gamtal" (patch way) since last many decades whereupon fencing wire lines have been erected by the defendants and due to which plaintiff could not be able to enter into his field, and thereby creating obstruction in the smooth movement of Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the respondent no.4/original plaintiff, and immediately, within no time, application was preferred under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act.
18. It is also found out from the record that except the said way any other existent road/way available in the fields on the basis of which respondent no.4/original plaintiff and his relatives can reach to their fields, and therefore, the said impediments in the nature of obstructions created by the applicant/defendant are required to be removed. The Mamlatdar concerned has also paid a visit and made spot inspection of the area, the circle inspector had drawn map, carried out panchnama and recorded statements of the witnesses. The cumulative effect of all those evidences available on record itself crystallized the position of fact that by way of constructing fencing upon the patch way by the applicant/defendant the obstructions have been generated in the smooth functioning of the respondent no.4/original plaintiff. Therefore, the said obstructions are required to be removed on an immediate basis. The Mamlatdar concerned has decided the suit in a summary manner by providing appropriate opportunity to all the parties to lead the evidence and develop their case, and ultimately decided the suit. At the time of deciding the suit, Mamlatdar has discussed the factual aspects of the matter, evidence available on record has been considered and appreciated in a threadbare manner by assigning elaborate reasons along with justifiable causes passed just, fair and reasonable order. The said order is challenged before the Depute Collector by way of preferring revision application. After considering and appreciating all those material and documents available on record, the Deputy Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Collector has also confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar. I have also gone through the orders passed by both the revenue authorities and of the opinion that order passed by the Mamlatdar and then after confirmed by the Deputy Collector is just, fair and reasonable based upon sound principle of law, and therefore, do not require to be interfered by the hands of this Hon'ble Court. It is a settled proposition of law that when petitioner preferred application based upon the concurrent findings of facts have been arrived at by two different authorities, court should be slow in interfering the view adopted by the authority concerned, more particularly, at the time of deciding the petition preferred under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said orders can be quashed and set aside in exceptional circumstances when the authorities concerned have not considered the documents and material available on record and reached to the particular findings. Therefore, the impugned orders do not require any interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Court.
19. On consideration of facts and the evidence appreciated by the revenue authorities while passing impugned orders, it can hardly be said that any error was committed by the respondent - Mamlatdar while directing the petitioner herein to remove obstruction created by him. Not only that, even the respondent - Deputy Collector thereafter has rightly confirmed the Mamlatdar's order by rejecting the revision application preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, both the revenue authorities have recorded concurrent findings about the existence of way on the basis of appreciation of evidence and the material on record. Therefore, the findings were reasonably arrived at and were informed by the relevant material. Further, Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the ingredients necessary to be satisfied under Section 5 of the Act were satisfied. No ground could be demonstrated nor found to be existing to upset the concurrent orders properly passed, in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
20. It is a well-established principle that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless the authorities below had either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely.
21. On the said settled proposition of law, I must make reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs. Ashalata S. Guram, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 447, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made following observations, "16. It is well settled that the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an appropriate court if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the courts below have come or in other words a finding which was perverse in law. This principle is well settled in D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee [(1952) 2 SCC 619] it was laid down by this court that unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention it was not for the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere. If there is evidence on record on which a finding can be arrived at and if the court has not misdirected itself either on law or on fact, then in exercise of the power under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court should refrain from interfering with such findings made by the appropriate authorities."
(Emphasis Supplied) Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
22. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision in case of Shamshad Ahmad Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 1 wherein it has been observed as under, "38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law."
23. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the matter in similar type of matter in case of Krishnanand Vs. Director of Consolidation, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 553 wherein it was held that:
"12. The High Court has committed an error in reversing the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below in coming to the conclusion that there was a partition. No doubt, the High Court did so in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
It is a settled law that such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised for reappreciating the evidence and arrival of findings of facts unless the authority which passed the impugned order does not have jurisdiction to render the finding or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or the finding is patently perverse."Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12695/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined (Emphasis Supplied)
24. Therefore in view of the above proposition of law, in my considered opinion, the concurrent findings given by both the revenue authorities are just, proper and based upon sound principle of law, which do not require any interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Court.
25. Thus in view of the above, the present petition fails and is hereby rejected. Notice is discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) AMIT ITALIAN Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:07:15 IST 2025