High Courts possess limited jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities in disputes regarding passage rights. Unless the findings are proven perverse or procedurally defective, the factual determination based on local inspection and evidence of long-standing usage remains binding under writ jurisdiction.

ORDER :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. By way of preferring present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought for the following main relief:

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 23.12.2022 passed by respondent- Mamlatdar in Mamlatdar Court Act Remand Case No.1 of 2022 (Annexure - M) as well as order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the respondent – Deputy Collector in Revision Application No.01/2023 (Annexure - P) and further be pleased to quash and set aside all consequential action pursuant to impugned orders:”

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P. S. Datta for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Denish Morakhia for learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for private respondents and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondent – State.

3. Learned advocate Mr. P. S. Datta for the petitioners submits that a suit under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act (it shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) has been instituted by the private respondents herein against the petitioners with a prayer that they may be given a right of way from the land of the petitioners. The said suit has been dismissed by the Mamlatdar concerned. Therefore, the said order has been assailed by way of preferring revision application before the Deputy Collector concerned. The said revision application has been allowed by the Deputy Collector by remanding the matter back to the Mamlatdar by a reasoned order. He submits that at the time of passing the order, the Deputy Collector has assigned exhaustive reasons specifically stating that at the time of conducting the suit proceedings, the Mamlatdar concerned has not considered certain important provisions of the Act in true spirit and proper perspective. Thus, the revision application has been considered by the Deputy Collector by remanding the matter back to the Mamlatdar to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law, keeping in mind the statutory provisions of the Act. Thereafter, once again, the proceedings of the suit have been initiated at the instance of the Mamlatdar and ultimately at the end of the day, the suit filed by the private respondents herein has been allowed by the Mamlatdar. However, at the time of entertaining the suit, Mamlatdar has, in fact, not considered the issue pinpointed by the Deputy Collector by passing the order of remand and therefore there are fundamental flaws in the proceedings initiated at the instance of the Mamlatdar concerned and therefore solely on this count, order passed by the Mamlatdar is required to be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Datta has further submitted that the dispute revolves around land bearing Survey No.44 Paiki 2/Paiki 1 (New Survey No.652) as well as Survey No.44 Paiki 1/Paiki 1 (New Survey No.655) situated at village Vaghrol, Taluka Dantivada, District Patan. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that before 20 days of filing of the suit, impediments have been created by the defendants in smooth usage of the way in question, which was being used and utilized by the plaintiffs. He further submits that in fact based upon the institution of the suit, spot inspection was carried out by the Circle Officer on 15.01.2021 and