Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
Reenaben Devjibhai Pansuria W/o Pankajbhai Harsoda - Appellant
Versus
Mamlatdar, Lodhika & Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 17000 of 2025
Decided On : 07-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Hitesh V Patel(6090)
For the Respondent: Ms. Hemani Shah, Ld. Asst. Government Pleader

Adjudicatory bodies must strictly adhere to mandatory procedural requirements, including the issuance of notices prior to site inspections and the joining of all necessary parties. Orders lacking independent reasoning or statutory compliance are legally unsustainable and require remand to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906 - Sections 5, 19(2) and 23(2) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Right of Way - Removal of obstruction - Procedural lapses in revenue proceedings - Failure to comply with mandatory statutory provisions for issuing notice before site inspection (Panchnama) constitutes a violation of natural justice - Absence of a specific date of cause of action in pleadings renders the initiation of proceedings unsustainable - Non-joinder of necessary parties whose land lies between the properties of the litigating parties precludes effective adjudication - Requirement of independent reasoning by an appellate authority when confirming an order. (Paras 6, 7, 15, 16)

(B) Appellate Scope - While courts are generally hesitant to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, intervention is mandatory where orders are afflicted by procedural breaches, jurisdictional errors, or a lack of independent application of mind by the appellate authority. (Paras 10, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged orders passed by authorities directing the removal of an alleged obstruction on a path. It was contended that the initial claim was time-barred, failed to specify the date of the cause of action, and suffered from procedural invalidity as the site inspection was conducted without notice to the landowner. Furthermore, necessary parties whose land situated between the properties were not included in the proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court observed significant procedural failures, including the breach of mandatory notice requirements before site inspection and the absence of clear findings regarding the date of the cause of action. The appellate authority failed to provide independent reasoning while affirming the initial decision.

Issues: Whether the revenue proceedings were initiated without adhering to mandatory procedural requirements, specifically regarding notice for site inspection, the joinder of necessary parties, and the clear establishment of the cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with mandatory statutory procedures, specifically the right to notice during physical investigations and the failure to implead necessary parties, renders quasi-judicial orders legally deficient. Such orders, lacking procedural foundations, must be remanded for de novo adjudication to ensure due process is upheld.

Result: Application allowed. Impugned orders quashed and set aside. Matter remanded to the concerned authority for fresh decision after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties involved.

Table of Content
1. historical factual background of property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 11)
2. parties' contentions regarding statutory compliance and evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. evaluation of mandatory procedural requirements and non-joinder. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. remand of proceedings for de novo consideration. (Para 17 , 18)

ORDER :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Mamlatdar, Lodhika, whereby the writ applicant was directed not to restrain the respondent from using the disputed road as also to keep open the disputed road, as well as the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Deputy Collector, Rajkot, upholding the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Lodhika.

2. Facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of the present application, may be summarized as under;

2.1 The writ applicant is the owner of an agricultural land bearing Survey No.906 (old Survey No.274 paiki 2), admeasuring Hector 01-71-99 sq. mtrs. as well as the land bearing Survey No.907 (old Survey No.274 paiki 1), admeasuring Hector 01-71-99 sq. mtrs., situated at village: Chandli, Taluka: Lodhika, District: Rajkot (for short ‘lands in question’).

2.2 The writ applicant has purchased the lands in question vide registered Sale Deed both dated 11.10.2022 from one Dineshbhai Gangdasbhai Harsoda, and an entry to that effect also came to be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry Nos.5426 and 5427 both dated 11.10.2022, which were certified on 09.12.2023.

2.3 The private respondent No.3 is the owner of the land adjacent to the lands of the writ applicant bearing Survey No.866 (old Survey No.292 paiki 1) situated on the southern side of the lands of the writ applicants.

2.4 The private respondent No.3 instituted a suit being Suit No.02 of 2024 on 26.12.2023 before the Mamlatdar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 (for short ‘Act, 1906’), inter alia, alleging therein that the writ applicant has closed the disputed road, and therefore, the respondent cannot use the disputed road for ingress and egress to reach to their agricultural field, and as such, prayed to direct the writ applicant to open the disputed road.

2.5 The writ applicant appeared in the aforesaid proceedings, and filed her written statement.

2.6 Thereafter, after hearing the parties, the Mamlatdar, Lodhika passed the impugned order dated 04.07.2024, directing the writ applicant to remove the encroachment.

2.7 Being aggrieved, the writ applicant preferred appeal being Appeal No.11 of 2024 before the Deputy Collector, Rajkot under Section 23(2) of the Act, 1906, who vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2024, rejected the said appeal and upheld the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 04.07.2024.

2.8 Being aggrieved, the writ applicant is here before this Court with the present application.

3. Learned advocate Mr. H.V. Patel appearing for the writ applicant has reiterated the facts narrated herein above and submits that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector, confirming the order of the Mamlatdar is unjust, arbitrary, perverse, illegal, unreasonable and contrary to law, and as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that both the revenue authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that, the private respondent herein has suppressed the material facts at the time of filing the suit. He also submits that it is the case of the private respondent No.3 that the land of the writ applicant is situated at the northern side of his land, and thereafter, there is Vadala road. He further submits that, in fact, there is village road towards the southern side of the respondent No.3’s land and towards the north side, there is land of Survey Nos.867 and 868 of Bhavnaben Chanabhai Sardhara, and thereafter, the land of the writ applicant is situated. He submits that, thus, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADDIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.Reenaben Devjibhai Pansuria W/o Pankajbhai Harsoda - AppellantVersusMamlatdar, Lodhika & Ors. - RespondentSpecial Civil Application No. 17000 of 2025Decided On : 07-04-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
Reenaben Devjibhai Pansuria W/o Pankajbhai Harsoda - Appellant
Versus
Mamlatdar, Lodhika & Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 17000 of 2025
Decided On : 07-04-2026