ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:

“[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.1.2020 passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Dabhoi in Mamlatdar Courts Act / Dispute. 04 of 2018 and further be pleased to uphold the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar in Mamlatdar Court Act Case No.04 of 2018 dated 26.07.2018;

[B] During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation, execution of the impugned order dated 31.1.2020 passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Dabhoi in Mamlatdar Courts Act / Dispute. 04 of 2018;”

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under:

2.1 The petitioner, a private limited company, purchased a land bearing survey No.32/1/3 (new survey No.144/1), 32/1/4 (new survey No.144/3), 32/1/5 (new survey No.144/5), 32/1/6 (new survey No.144/2), 32/1/7 (new survey No.144/4), 32/3/16 (new survey No.146/1) of Village – Khandiwada, Taluka – Vaghodiya, District Vadodara from Snehal Shah and Sachin Shah by way of registered sale deed Nos.1199 and 1200 dated 15.10.2009. After purchasing the aforesaid land, which was agricultural land, as the petitioner wanted to use the said land for industrial purpose, the petitioner made an application under Section 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (for short, `Tenancy Act’), which was allowed by the learned District Collector and the permission under Section 63AA of the Tenancy Act was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 1.3.2011.

2.2 Thereafter, the Collector, Vadodara granted permission for non-agricultural use of the said land as per the provisions of Section 65B of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code vide order dated 5.9.2012 and thereafter the petitioner started using the said land for industrial purpose.

2.3 On 22.5.2018, the respondent Nos.4 to 6 gave application stating that the petitioner company has blocked a Government sub-road by constructing a wall, which was being used by respondent Nos.4 to 6 for ingress and egress to their agricultural fields. Pursuant to the aforesaid application, Mamlatdar Vaghodiya issued notice to the petitioner and thereafter hearing took place on various dates. Pursuant to the aforesaid application preferred by the private respondents, the petitioner remained present before the Mamlatdar, Vaghodiya and filed reply. It was contended by the petitioner before the Mamlatdar that the petitioner has not committed any encroachment on the gaucher land and that private respondents are having an alternative road. It was the case of the petitioner before the Mamlatdar that even as per the map, there is no road. The petitioner further contended before the Mamlatdar that at the time of granting non-agricultural permission, all the details were verified and thereafter only permission was granted and since at that point of time, no such dispute relating to existence of road arose, application preferred by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 is misconceived. The petitioner also contended that for commuting, the petitioner is ready and willing to give way from the land owned by him i.e. survey No.32/1/2 and 32/1/1. The petitioner further contended before the Mamlatdar that the application preferred by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 was beyond the period of limitation i.e. after six months from the date on which cause of action has arisen and cause of action specifically not mentioned therein. Hence, it was in contravention to mandatory provisions of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, and therefore, application preferred by the private respondents was required to be rejected.

2.4 The Mamlatdar, Vaghodiya, after taking into consideration the oral as well as written