In exercise of writ jurisdiction, courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings of revenue authorities unless such findings are proven to be patently perverse, based on no evidence, or result from a clear jurisdictional error causing a failure of justice.

ORDER :

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector, Vyara in Revision Case No.02 of 2021 as well as the order dated 20.03.2020 passed by the Mamlatdar in Mamlatdar Case No.04 of 2019.

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

2.1 The writ applicants are the co-owners and occupiers of the land bearing Block/Survey No.311, situated at Village: Algat, Taluka: Valod, whereas the respondent No.3 owns the Block No.338, the respondent No.3 and six others jointly own land bearing Block No.337, respondent Nos.3 and 4 along with nine others jointly own the Block No.308, respondent Nos.5 and 6 along with four others own the land bearing Block No.334 and respondent Nos.7 to 9 are the owners of the land bearing Block Survey No.336.

2.2 On 17.12.2019, the respondent Nos.3 to 9 instituted suit being Case No.04 of 2019 against the writ applicants under Section 5 (2) of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (for short ‘Act, 1906’), seeking removal of obstruction at the southern portion of the writ applicant’s land, i.e., Survey No.311, inter alia, alleging therein that the writ applicants have created obstructions at the southern side of their land at Survey No.311, and therefore, the private respondents are unable to reach to their respective fields.

2.3 Thereafter, on 16.01.2020, a Panchnama was carried out, wherein it emerged that there is a way on the eastern side of Block Survey No.311 which goes from north to south and the same is open. It is also stated in the Panchnama that on the southern side of Block Survey No.311, crops are harvested.

2.4 Upon receipt of Notice of hearing from the office of the Respondent No.2, the writ applicants have filed their reply pointing out cause of action and non-joinder of party vide reply dated 14.02.2020. It is stated in the reply that the suit be rejected as the other co-owners of Block No.337, 308, 334 and 336 have not preferred suit before the Mamlatdar, seeking right of way from the land of the writ applicants. It is also stated that there is alternate way which was in use by the plaintiffs.

2.5 In the aforesaid proceedings, the respondents, i.e, the original plaintiffs have produced affidavits of their acquainted persons before the Mamlatdar, supporting the case of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the writ applicants filed their reply on 14.02.2020 denying the averments, statements and submissions made in the suit and have raised several legal contentions with regards to non-joinder of parties and non-disclosure of the date of cause of action arose.

2.6 Thereafter, the respondent No.2-Mamlatdar, Valod allowed the suit preferred by the respondent Nos.3 to 9 vide its order dated 20.03.2020, and thereby the writ applicants were ordered to restrain from creating any obstructions as also further ordered to remove the obstructions of thorn fence on the way passing from land at Block No.311 at Algat, Taluka: Valod, District: Tapi.

2.7 Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 20.03.2020, the writ applicants preferred revision before the respondent No.1-Deputy Collector being Revision Application No.02 of 2021, however, the respondent No.1-Deputy Collector, vide its order dated 14.07.20201, rejected the said revision application, and confirm