IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 609 of

2026 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 188/2026 (F/LPA No. 2558 of 2026)

In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8927/2025 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 188 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8927 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 188 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8927 of 2025 ==========================================================

RAMJIBHAI MOHANBHAI PATOLIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR C P CHANIYARA(6836) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS.HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 19/02/2026

JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY)

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.609 OF 2026:-

Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 has no objection to the delay of 47 days in filing the present appeal. The delay has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation application is hereby allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The office shall allot the regular number to the appeal.

ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2026

1. Heard Mr. C. P. Chaniyara, learned Counsel for the appellant; Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 (original writ petitioner).

2. Since the controversy is very short, with the consent of the Counsel of the either side, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Hetal Patel, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Kirtidav R. Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.4 (original writ petitioner).

4. The brief facts which lead to the present appeal are as follows :-

4.1 The appellant and respondent No. 4 are related as cousins. It is the Appellant’s case that in or about the year 1958, the predecessors of the appellant and respondent No. 4 effected a family arrangement/partition in writing, whereby certain ancestral lands came to be divided. Under the said arrangement, a right of way was expressly recognized and recorded for the benefit of the concerned parties. Pursuant thereto, land bearing Survey No. 250 was apportioned into separate parts, namely 250/1 paiki in favour of respondent No. 4, 250/1 paiki in favour of the appellant, and Survey No.

263/1 in favour of one Mansukhbhai.

4.2 It is further averred that a dispute arose in or around the year 2018, when respondent No. 4 allegedly obstructed the aforesaid right of way. However, the parties are stated to have amicably resolved the dispute at the relevant time, and the access road was reopened.

4.3 Subsequently, it is the case of the appellant that shortly prior to the institution of proceedings under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906, respondent No. 4 once again created obstruction over the said way. In response thereto, the appellant initiated proceedings before the Mamlatdar, Jetpur (Rural). Upon conducting a panchrozkam and considering the material on record, the Mamlatdar, by order dated 27.12.2024 passed in Suit No. 11 of 2024, granted relief in favour of the appellant. The said order came to be confirmed by the Deputy Collector, Gondal, by order dated

13.05.2025 passed in Appeal No. 5 of 2025.

4.4 Being aggrieved thereby, respondent No. 4 preferred Special Civil Application No. 8927 of 2025 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by impugned judgment and order dated 11.11.2025, allowed the petition and quashed and set aside both the aforesaid or