IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5138 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No √ -

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

PRAVIN JITENDRAKUMAR JAIN & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR SIDDHARTH R KHESKANI for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3 MR JAY TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No.1-3 MR PM BUCH(7383) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 =======================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Date : 16/03/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and learned advocate, Mr. P.M. Buch for respondent no.4 waive service of notice of rule.

2. By filing present petition under Articles 14, 19, 21, 226 and 300A of the Constitution of India as well as under the provision of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1906” for short), the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the respondent no.3 as well as the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the respondent no.2.

Alternative prayer is also sought for to remand the matter back before the respondent authorities for fresh consideration.

3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Siddharth Kheskani for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and learned advocate, Mr. P.M. Buch for the respondent no.4.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Kheskani referred to the documents produced on record and submitted that the petitioners herein are the original defendants in the suit instituted by the respondent no.4, who is original plaintiffs before the respondent – Mamlatdar, wherein the notice was issued upon the petitioners, however initially, they did not remain present and, thereafter, they appeared before the respondent – Mamlatdar and produced on record copies of map as well as sale deed and requested for time for submitting reply but instead of considering their request, the matter was proceeded further and ultimately, the suit preferred by the respondent no.4 herein was allowed, against which, revision application was preferred before the respondent – Deputy Collector by pointing out manyfold grounds but without properly considering the facts of the case, the respondent – Deputy Collector rejected the said revision application, which has resulted into filing of the present petition.

5. Learned advocate, Mr. Kheskani submitted that the respondent no.4 herein is the owner of land bearing Survey Nos.413 & 1299 situated in the sim of Village : Undrel, Taluka : Daskroi, District : Ahmedabad, whereas the petitioners are the owner of land bearing Survey Nos.403 & 415 of the said village. He submitted that as per the case of the respondent no.4 herein, the petitioners have blocked the way to enter into the land owned by the respondent no.4, therefore, the respondent no.4 was constrained to instituted suit before the respondent – Mamlatdar under Section 5 of the Act of 1906 and sought injunction, wherein the notice was issued, which was duly served upon the petitioners, however for some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioners could not remain present before the authority concerned but subsequently, they appeared and submitted certain documents like map, sale deed etc. and also requested for time to file reply in the matter but instead of granting time, the respondent – Mamlatdar proceeded further with the matter ex parte and passed impugned order, whereby the suit preferred by the respondent no.4 has been allowed, therefore, the said order was challenged before the respondent – Deputy Collector by filing revision application but there also, the facts as pointed out by the petitioners were not properly considered and passed impugned order, whereby the said revision application came to be rejected.

6. Lea