Facts
The original plaintiffs (respondents) filed a suit under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar Courts’ Act, 1906, alleging that the defendants (petitioners) obstructed a traditional ‘Naliyu’ (small road) located on the northern side of Survey No. 65, which provided access to the plaintiffs' agricultural lands (Survey Nos. 66 and 67)
Source reference: p. 2The petitioners contended the way was a private pedestrian path created via a 1960 partition and denied the existence of a government road
Source reference: p. 4, 6The Mamlatdar (Executive Magistrate) allowed the suit (No. 03/2020) after a spot inspection and a DILR (District Inspector Land Record) report confirmed the existence of a government ‘Naliyu’
Source reference: p. 3, 9The Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the revision application (No. 04/2021) on 09.05.2022
Source reference: p. 1, 3The petitioners challenged these concurrent findings via this writ petition under Article 226/227
Source reference: p. 1Issues
1. Whether the revenue authorities exceeded their jurisdiction under the Mamlatdar Courts’ Act by creating a "new" right of way as opposed to restoring an existing one
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the Mamlatdar failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 7, 11, and 19 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906
Source reference: p. 73. Whether the concurrent findings of the lower authorities regarding the existence of a government ‘Naliyu’ were perverse or based on a misinterpretation of the village map and DILR report
Source reference: p. 11-12Law Applied
The Court applied Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar Courts’ Act, 1906, which empowers the Mamlatdar to remove obstructions to roads used for agricultural purposes
Source reference: p. 3It relied on the principle of "Concurrent Findings," establishing that factual conclusions reached by multiple lower authorities are binding unless proved perverse or based on no evidence
Source reference: p. 12The Court also defined the scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, noting that jurisdiction is limited to cases of grave injustice, lack of jurisdiction, or overstepping jurisdictional limits, and does not extend to acting as an appellate court
Source reference: p. 12-13Reasoning
The Court found that the Mamlatdar’s decision was rooted in physical evidence and official records.
Source reference: no citationA Panchnama and personal site inspection by the Mamlatdar confirmed the road's usage
Source reference: p. 11Crucially, the Mamlatdar obtained a report from the DILR, which verified the "Prati Book" and historical revenue records, concluding that a "Vigha 0-1 Vasa" government waste land ('Kharabo') served as a ‘Naliyu’ road between Survey Nos. 65 and 70
Source reference: p. 9, 11-12The Court rejected the petitioners' argument regarding procedural lapses (non-framing of issues), noting these grounds were not raised during the revision before the Deputy Collector
Source reference: p. 9The Court held that since the DILR report and maps clearly identified the path as government property, the petitioners could not claim it as private land
Source reference: p. 11Holding
The High Court dismissed the petition, answering the issues in the negative.
It held that the revenue authorities acted within their jurisdiction based on a factual determination supported by the DILR and site inspections
Source reference: p. 11The court affirmed that it would not re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings under writ jurisdiction in the absence of perversity or illegality
Source reference: p. 13The impugned orders dated 30.06.2021 and 09.05.2022 were upheld
Source reference: p. 13Original Court PDF
Patel Prahladbhai Revabhai & Ors. v. Patel Revabhai Virchandbhai & Ors. [Special Civil Application No. 18784 of 2022]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in