Prajapati Aasharam Bababhai vs Dy Collector Prantij
2025 Latest Caselaw 6935 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Prajapati Aasharam Bababhai vs Dy Collector Prantij on 25 September, 2025

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/2053/2024                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2053 of 2024


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE                                       Sd/-
                      ================================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                        Yes            No
                                                                                                No
                      ================================================================
                                             PRAJAPATI AASHARAM BABABHAI & ORS.
                                                           Versus
                                                DY COLLECTOR PRANTIJ & ORS.
                      ================================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
                      MS NIDHI VYAS AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4.2
                      MR MUNJAAL M BHATT(8283) for the Respondent(s) No.
                      10,3,4.1,4.1.1,4.1.2,4.1.3,5,6,7,8,9
                      ================================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                                                             Date : 25/09/2025
                                                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Munjaal M. Bhatt, learned advocate waives service of rule for the respondent Nos.3 to 10.

2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioners impugn the judgment and order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the Dy. Collector, Prantij in Mamlatdar Court/Revision/Case No.7 of 2023 and order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the Mamlatdar,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2053/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

Talod in Mamlatdar Court Act/Case No.7 of 2022.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that there is no documentary evidence in support of the alleged road/path passing from the middle of the land of Survey Nos.171/2 and 171/3, or that the said road/path has been obstructed by the petitioners herein thereby preventing the respondent Nos.3 to 10

- plaintiffs from approaching their agricultural field being Survey No.207 situated at Village Dadarda, Taluka Talod. The Panchnama of the site came to be conducted, the evidence came to be recorded and the Mamlatdar, Talod by order dated 13.02.2023 has allowed the case of the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs directing the petitioners herein to clear the obstruction raised by them. The petitioners thereafter preferred Revision Case No.7 of 2023 before the Dy. Collector, Prantij. By order dated 20.11.2023, the Dy. Collector, Prantij has dismissed the revision application of the petitioners.

5. Mr. N.V.Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the original case of the plaintiffs - respondent Nos.3 to 10 was that they were approaching their agricultural field from northern side which is passing from the middle of Survey Nos.171 and 172. He submits that they are accessing the said path from ancestral time. He submits that the petitioners have raised a plea that there is no alternative way available to them to access their agricultural field with their bullock-cart, tractor, etc. except the said path. He submits that upon service of notice, the petitioners have appeared in the suit proceedings before the Mamlatdar, Talod and have also filed their written objections. The first Panchnama which was prepared by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2053/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

Mamlatdar, Talod was without due notice of the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners have raised appropriate objections to the said Panchnama. Accordingly, on 16.09.2022, the second Panchnama came to be carried out in the presence of the petitioners. He submits that the second Panchnama dated 16.09.2022 does not support the say of the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs about non-availability of alternative path. He submits that the petitioners have filed a detailed written statement pointing out that no such way / path existed as claimed by the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs. He submits that the land bearing Survey No.171 has been divided into 7 different blocks. The respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs being not aware about the geographical location of the land in question have filed a false suit. He submits that the actual path available to the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs is from Dedarda- Kalipura road approaching to the western boundary of Survey No.173 and going to the southern edge of Survey No.174 and thereafter approaching to the Survey Nos. 208 and 207. He submits that the respondent No.2 Mamlatdar, Talod is avoiding to carry out the Panchnama of the said path which is in use by the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs. He submits that despite raising such a contention, no finding has been given by both the authorities in their orders while allowing the suit of the plaintiffs

- respondent Nos.3 to 10 and while dismissing the revision application of the petitioners herein. He submits that the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiffs also reveals that the respondent Nos.6 has deposed that no cultivation is carried out upon the land of the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs since many years. He further submits that the respondent Nos.3 to 10

- plaintiffs are residing elsewhere for their livelihood and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2053/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

therefore also, it cannot be said that they are cultivating their field in Survey No.207. Further, in his deposition, the respondent No.6 herein was not even aware about the names of the nearby land holders or the crops taken by them. The said witness was not even aware about the crops which were being cultivated by his coparceners on the other part of the Survey No.207. He submits that when the respondent No.6 who has appeared as witness is not aware of any ground situation, his deposition could not have been relied upon. He submits that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have erred in relying upon the Panchnama because the said Panchnama does not reveal any existing path as claimed by the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs. He submits that further the Panchas to the Panchnama have also not been examined. He submits that the Panchnama being the only piece of evidence in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs, the same ought to have been corroborated by independent evidence. He submits that in absence of any existing path or approach way to the field of the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs, the only remedy available to the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs was to file a civil suit. He, therefore, submits that the present writ petition be allowed.

6. Per contra, Mr. Munjaal M. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs has submitted that both the Mamlatdar, Talod as well as the Dy. Collector, Prantij have passed a well reasoned order. He submits that the respondents are not in position to access their land being Survey No.207 since the road passes through revenue Survey No.171/2 and 171/3 which has been obstructed and there is resistance from the petitioners. He submits that the Panchnama dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2053/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

16.09.2022 which was done in presence of all the parties, including the petitioners herein has clearly established that there exists a road used for transportation and access by the owners of Survey Nos.175, 176, 177, 205, 206, 213, 212 and

207. He submits that an appropriate inquiry and procedure was also conducted by the Mamlatdar, Talod in the said context. Further, the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs had also filed affidavits by the owners of Survey Nos.211, 212, 213, 174 and 208 who state that they were using the said road passing through Survey No.171 for transportation and approach to their respective lands. He further submits that even in the deposition of the petitioner No.1 on behalf of all the petitioners, it is admitted that the petitioners have closed and obstructed the road by putting thorns and grass beyond Survey No.171/3. He, therefore, submits that the orders passed by the Mamlatdar, Talod and Dy. Collector, Prantij are just and proper and the present Special Civil Application be dismissed.

7. Heard learned advocates for the parties, perused the documents and considered the submissions.

8. In the present case, the Mamlatdar, Talod has conducted a second Panchnama in presence of all the parties. The said Panchnama shows that there is a way passing through Survey Nos.171/2 and 171/3 and thereafter, the said road is closed for 50 mts. and further goes on to survey No.207. The Panchnama further records that there is also water drainage along the road wherein grass has grown now. The site inspection reveals that the said road going to the land of the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs was being used for taking agricultural equipments,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2053/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

bullock-cart and tractor, etc. to the lands of the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs. Further, the said road also serves as an approach to Survey Nos. 175, 176, 177, 205, 206, 213, 212 and

207. The said road was not in use because of obstruction created. The said site Panchnama has not been disputed or challenged by the petitioners. Further, in his own deposition, the petitioner No.1 has admitted the existence of the road in question by stating that it is true that the road shown in the photograph No.3 was closed by them by putting thorns and grass. Based on the said evidence and taking into consideration the averments made by the parties, the Mamlatdar, Talod as well as the Dy. Collector, Prantij have come to the conclusion that there exists road for approach to Survey No.207 owned by the respondent Nos.3 to 10 - plaintiffs. The said facts are borne out from the record.

In view thereof, no interference is called for in the impugned orders passed by the Mamlatdar, Talod as well as Dy. Collector, Prantij. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are rejected.

The present Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN