Gujarat High Court
Nagajbhai Natubhai Savani vs State Of Gujarat on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14089/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14089 of 2022
=======================================================
NAGAJBHAI NATUBHAI SAVANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR DIVYANG A RAMANI(7180) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JEET JOTANGIA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR VC VAGHELA for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5,6,7,8
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provision of the Mamlatdar Coruts, Act, 1960, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the respondent - Deputy Collector, Palitana in Mamlatdar Courts Act Revision Application Case No.2/2021 and the order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the respondent - Mamlatdar, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the obstruction created by the petitioner and open the land for the respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under, The owner of the land bearing Survey Nos.49 pk. & 46 pk. (i.e. the respondent nos.3 to 8 herein) have submitted an application before the respondent - Mamlatdar against the owner of land Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:28:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14089/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined bearing Survey No.47 (i.e. the petitioner herein) alleging inter alia that the said way was being used by their forefather since long, however, the petitioner herein has blocked the way of the respondent nos.3 to 8 herein to approach their land. On submission of said application, the notice was issued upon the petitioner and after hearing the parties, the respondent - Mamlatdar, by an order dated 07.07.2021, allowed the said application and thereby directed the petitioner herein to remove the obstruction and open the land for the use of the respondent nos.3 to 8 herein, against the said order, the petitioner approached the respondent - Deputy Collector, who confirmed the order of the respondent - Mamlatdar by impugned order dated 18.04.2022. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Divyang Ramani for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Jeet Jotangia for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate, Mr. V.C. Vaghela for the respondent nos.3 to 8.
4. The gist of the arguments canvassed by learned advocate, Mr. Ramani for the petitioner is that despite having alternative way for the respondent nos.3 to 8, an application was moved before the respondent - Mamlatdar, who without appreciating the facts of the case, granted the said application and directed the petitioner to remove the obstruction and open the way for them. He submitted that in fact, when the application was Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:28:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14089/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined moved before the respondent - Mamlatdar, objection was raised about the maintainability of the said application specifically stating that before erecting fencing surrounding the land, they have carried out measurement through concerned DILR, who before carrying out measurement recorded the statements of persons concerned and, thereafter, prepared Map of the place in question and if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the said set of document, in that event, it is found out that there is no encroachment made by the petitioner as alleged, however, the respondent - Mamlatdar as well as the Deputy Collector both have not properly considered the facts and directed the petitioner to open the land for the use of the respondent nos.3 to 8. He further submitted that in fact, recently the private respondents have purchased the land from the original land owner, therefore, they cannot get any easementary rights from the land owned by the petitioner, therefore, both the revenue authorities have committed an error in passing impugned orders. It is, therefore, urged that the present petition may be allowed as prayed for by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Vaghela appearing for the respondent nos.3 to 8 strongly objected to the grant of relief as prayed for in the present petition contending inter alia that at the time of passing impugned orders, the revenue Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:28:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14089/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined authorities have taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter and also taken into consideration the right of way that may be used by the private respondents, therefore, the revenue authorities have not committed any error, which requires interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Court. He submitted that in fact, after submission of the application by the private respondent, an order came to be passed directing the Circle Officer to visit place and prepare panchnama and pursuant to the said order, the concerned Circle Officer had carried out panchnama and on the strength of the said panchnama, the respondent - Mamlatdar jumped to a conclusion that there is obstruction created by the petitioner, therefore, same is required to be removed, therefore, the impugned order has been passed, which has been rightly confirmed by the respondent - Deputy Collector. He further submitted that in fact, it is the intention of the petitioner to create obstruction in the way of private respondents, therefore, fencing was erected and thereby blocked the way, which affects the rights of the private respondents. He further submitted that in fact, the land on which the obstruction is created by the petitioner is kharaba land and the said fact is clearly evident from the Map prepared by the concerned authority and even from the report of the DILR. He submitted that there is no dispute about the alternative way but the said way was Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:28:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14089/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined being used by the forefathers since number of years, which has been deliberately blocked by the petitioner. At this stage, he submitted that there is concurrent findings of fact given by both the revenue authorities, therefore at the time of entertaining the writ petition, more particularly, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Court may be slow to interfere with the view expressed by the concerned authority. It is, therefore, urged that the present petition may be rejected.
6. Learned AGP Mr. Jotangia for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that at the time of passing impugned orders, the revenue authorities have taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter and, thereafter, passed impugned orders, which may not be interfered with. It is, therefore, urged that the present petition may be rejected.
7. In view of the rival submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and having considered the documents available on record, it has emerged that the dispute pertains to right of way to approach the field owned by the private respondents, which has been blocked by the petitioner herein by erecting fencing surrounding the land.
8. As can be seen from the material available on record, the land bearing Survey Nos.49 pk. & 46 pk. are belonging to the private respondents, Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:28:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14089/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined whereas the land bearing Survey No.47 is belonging to the petitioner herein and to approach the land owned by the private respondents, they are using the way passing through the land owned by the petitioner and the said way is open since number of years and it was opened, however thereafter, the said way was blocked by the petitioner herein, which resulted into submission of the application by the private respondents before the respondent - Mamlatdar, however before taking any decision on the application submitted by the private respondents, the Circle Officer was directed to visit the place and prepare panchnama of the said place and pursuant thereto, panchnama has been prepared by the Circle Officer. I have considered the said panchnama and found that width of the said road is around 10-12 ft. and with the help of said way, the private respondents are approaching to their field. I have also considered the Map produced by the petitioner and found that there is way available on the said Map with dotted line, however deliberately the said way has been blocked with the help of cement poll, which crystallize the position that there is way, which has been blocked.
9. I have also considered the impugned orders passed by the respondent - Deputy Collector as well as Mamlatdar. On careful examination of the findings given by the authorities, it is found out that at the time of deciding the application preferred by Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:28:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14089/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined the private respondents, each and every aspect has been taken into consideration. Not only that, the respondent - Mamlatdar has taken into consideration the revenue records, panchnama prepared by the concerned Circle Officer as well as the measurement-sheet and based on those set of material, the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to remove the obstruction created by him and the said finding, in my considered opinion, has been rightly upheld by the respondent - Deputy Collector. It is evident from the observations made by the revenue authorities while passing impugned orders that the petitioner has illegally encroached upon Government kharaba land, which is the way for passing from the said land, wherein the obstruction has been created by the petitioner by erecting fencing surrounding the land. Not only that, the aforesaid aspect is supported by the Map prepared by the authority concerned and the report of the DILR. Thus at the time of deciding the issue involved in the matter, the revenue authorities have taken into consideration all aspects of the matter. Therefore, the impugned orders do not require any interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Court.
10. 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 -
Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:28:03 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14089/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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, 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:28:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14089/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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)
13. 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 Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:28:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14089/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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."
14. 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 Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:28:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14089/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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."
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. 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.
16. Thus in view of the above, the present petition fails and is hereby rejected. Notice is discharged.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:28:03 IST 2025