ORDER :

1. By consent of all the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.

2. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Jainil Parikh waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. P. J. Mehta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3.

3. By way of this petition, the present petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“A) THIS HON’BLE COURT may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari, or any other writ or order or directions and be further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 17.07.2020 passed in Revision Application no.1/2019 passed by Ld. Dy. Collector & Prant Officer, Bardoli, Dist.: Surat produced at Annex.A to this petition respectively; AND

(B) THIS HON’BLE COURT may be pleased to stay impugned order dtd. 17.7.2020 passed in Revision Application no.1/2019 passed by the Ld. Dy. Collector & Prant Officer, Bardoli, Dist.: Surat produced at Annex.-A to this petition, pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition; AND

(C) THIS HON’BLE COURT may be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of Para (B) pending hearing and final disposal of this petition; AND

(D) THIS HON’BLE COURT may be pleased to pass such other and further orders may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. N. V. Gandhi for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Jainil Parikh for the respondents – State and learned advocate Mr. P.J. Mehta for the respondents no.1 to 3.

5. The brief facts are stated as under:-

The present respondents no. 1 to 3 preferred an application under section 5 of the Mamlatdars Court Act before the Executive Magistrate, Mahuva against the present respondent no.4 Dilipbhai Dahyabhai Patel and his son Nirav Dilipbhai Patel praying for opening of road passing through the field of Dilipbhai Dahyabhai Patel and Nirav Dilipbhai situated at survey no. 81/2 mouje Village :Dungari, Taluka :- Mahuva and District : Surat. As according to the respondents no.1 to 3 there were owners of the block no.116 and 117 of the Mouje Dungari , Taluka: Mahuva and District : Surat and to reach their field they were using the road passing through survey no. 81/2 which is owned by the aforesaid Dilipbhai Dahyabhai Patel and Nirav Dilipbhai Patel. Said Dilipbhai Dahyabhai Patel is joined as respondent no.4 in the present petition. Once the aforesaid application was made by the present respondents no. 1 to 3, the same was registered as Mamlatdar Court Act / Case No.1 of 2018 by the Mamlatdar, Mahuva and proceedings under the Mamlatdars Court Act were initiated. Thereafter, notice was issued to the said Dilipbhai Dahyabhai Patel and Niravbhai Dilipbhai Patel and panchrojkam was carried out on 08.05.2018.

6. Pursuant to the notice, defendant no.2 in the said suit Niravbhai Dilipbhai Patel appeared before the Mamlatdar, Mahuva and file his reply. Considering the panchrojkam as well as the material available on record, ultimately the Mamlatdar, Mahuva, District:- Surat vide order dated 02.02.2019 rejected the application preferred by the respondents no.1 to 3 herein by stating that the original applicant - present respondents no.1 to 3 herein have failed to prove that the road which they are claiming to have passed through the field of the respondent no.4 and his son and therefore, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2019.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents no. 1 to 3 in this petition preferred a revision application being Revision Application No. 1 of 2019 before the Court of Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, Bardoli. Though it was a revision application under section 23 of the Mamlatdars Court Act and though in the original proceedings before the Mamlatdar, Mahuva, only the respondent no.4 Dilipbhai Dahyabhai Patel and his son Niravbhai Dilipbhai Patel were joined as defendants by the original applicant, present respondents no.1