The existence of alternative pathways negates claims of obstruction to access agricultural land under the Mamlatdar Courts Act.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pinank J. Raiyani for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. A.A. Zabuawala for the private respondents and learned AGP Mr. Jayneel Parikh for the respondent authorities.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge order passed by the Deputy Collector, Gondal, dated 16.09.2021 setting aside order passed by the Mamlatdar, Gondal, dated 23.06.2021.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide an order dated 11.12.2024, this Court had directed the Mamlatdar, Gondal, to prepare a fresh Panchnama in presence of both the parties, more particularly showing the location of the disputed pathway as well as existence of any alternative pathway for the petitioners to access their land in question.

3. Briefly stated the petitioners, who were the plaintiffs before the Mamlatdar, had inter alia approached the Mamlatdar contending that the petitioners are owners of the lands bearing Survey No.114 paikee 4, 114 paikee 6, 114 paikee 3 and 114 paikee 5. The case of the petitioners being that the private respondents, who were owners of the land bearing Survey No.114 paikee 1 had obstructed the pathway of the petitioners from accessing their land and whereas under such circumstances, the petitioners had approached the Mamlatdar for ensuring that the obstruction is removed. It would appear that the Mamlatdar vide order dated 23.06.2021 had inter alia directed the private respondents to remove his obstruction from the pathway in question and whereas the Mamlatdar had further observed that non-compliance of the direction would result in appropriate proceedings under Section 188 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code being initiated against the private respondents. It would appear that the Mamlatdar had inter alia relied upon a Panchnama, which was prepared in presence of Mamlatdar on 08.07.2020, wherein it is observed that the private respondents had placed small hutment on the pathway in question and there was cultivation also before the pathway.

4. The private respondents being aggrieved by the order of the Mamlatdar, had approached the Deputy Collector by preferring Mamlatdar Courts Act Revision Case No.4/21 and whereas the Deputy Collector, Gondal, vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2021 had allowed the Revision Application and had set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar. It would appear that the primary contention of the petitioners that there was reference to a pathway in the sale deed by which the petitioners had purchased the land in question, had not appealed to the Deputy Collector. Furthermore, it would appear that the Deputy Collector had also noted that the petitioners have alternative route through which their lands in question. Having coming to such a conclusion, the Deputy Collector had allowed the Revision Application. The petitioners being aggrieved by the same, have approached this Court.

5. As observed hereinabove, this Court had inter alia directed the Mamlatdar, Gondal, to carry out a fresh Panchnama and whereas the same had been complied with and whereas a site map containing the disputed area as well as a site map showing all availability of alternative way, had been submitted by the Mamlatdar. Perusing the same, it would appear that there are two different pathways through which the petitioners could access their lands in question. The first pathway being from the Southern side of land bearing Survey No.114 paikee 2, which travels from village: Nana Sakhpar, upto land bearing Survey No.114 paikee 3 belonging to petitioner No.3 and land bearing Survey No.114 paikee 4,5,6 belonging to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Likewise, there is a pathway, which travells from the opposite side being bet