The court found that civil suit maintainability was not barred by statutory inquiries regarding public road rights, affirming jurisdiction and upholding the enabling nature of relevant legislative provisions.

1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Assistant Judge, Surat, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 279 of 1977, arising from the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Olpad, before whom Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1971 was filed by the Administrators. Mutawallis and Trustees of Masjid of Khusad village, who are appellants in cross Second Appeal No. 496 of 1979.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the aforesaid plaintiffs against Khudsad Gram Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat') on the allegation that in the property of the Masjid the Panchayat by demolishing the Ota attached to the well, and filling up the well, constructed a road from south to north. It is the case that the Panchayat had no authority, but went on giving notices twice or thrice to the plaintiffs who also replied the notices all the times, denying the right of the Panchayat on the land of the Masjid. First of all, it seems that the Panchayat objected to the construction being made by the Masjid authorities who were erecting some cess - pool and repairing the Ota. It was considered by the Panchayat that they were erecting some permanent structures with a view to obstruct the public to pass on that road to go to the pond on the north and fields, because the entire village is situated towards the south of the Masjid property, and it starts from the houses of Patidars.

3. It was the case of the Panchayat that permission to make construction should have been obtained, but the Masjid authorities stated that they were not carrying out any construction which required permission. Thereafter, the claim of the Panchayat about the road was disputed. In spite of that, on 10-12-1970, in the morning the Panchayat Sarpanch and its agents illegally trespassed into the Masjid land and removed the repairs carried out on the well and demolished the Ota of the Masjid attached to the well and filled - up the well and made a way of about 175 feet north - south in length and 15 feet in width east - west. Suit was, therefore, filed by the original plaintiffs for declarations and permanent and mandatory injunctions and for Rs. 500/- as compensation for damages to the property of the Masjid against the defendants.

4. The suit was contested by the Panchayat on the ground that the suit was not maintainable, and that it was a public road and it was not the property of the Masjid alone. But in the written statement it was also stated that the Panchayat did not do anything for demolition of the construction made by the Masjid authorities, but the people of the village might have done that, because there was a road already in existence and the Masjid authorities attempted to create impediments on the road. The suit was contested on the ground that there was a public road and it was in possession of the Panchayat, and the Panchayat had taken water pipe - line through this property and also erected lamp - posts for light for the facility of the public to pass from the road and, therefore, the plaintiffs had no authority to stop the village people from passing from this road and, therefore, it was stated that the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent and mandatory injunction and also claim for damages was not proper. The suit against the Panchayat was, therefore, not maintainable. On these and various other grounds it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

5. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and declared that the defendant - Panchayat had no right to demolish the Ota and the old well and its platform repaired by the plaintiffs by entering into the suit land, and to fill up the well and to prepare the road for public traffic on the eastern side of the Masjid in the property in possession, occupation and Vahivat of the Masjid. The trial Court also declared the actions resolutions and proceedings of the defendant - Pancha