Holding

The Deputy Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by altering the claim and directing a new right‑of‑way not pleaded before the Mamlatdar, and the order is quashed.

Summary

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to quash the Deputy Collector’s order dated 22‑12‑2023 which directed them to open a right‑of‑way for the respondents. The respondents had originally filed a suit under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Court Act claiming a southern way to their agricultural land, but the Mamlatdar dismissed the suit on the ground that the way had been blocked for ten years and the suit was filed beyond the six‑month limitation under Section 5(3). The respondents then filed a revision before the Deputy Collector, changing their claim to a western way, and the Deputy Collector allowed the revision, directing the petitioners and other parties to open this new way. The petitioners argued that the revision introduced a new claim not pleaded before the Mamlatdar, violated the limitation provision, and involved non‑joinder of parties. The Court held that the revisional authority cannot go beyond the pleadings and that the Deputy Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering a different way, and therefore quashed the order.

Issues considered

The suit under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Court Act was barred by the six‑month limitation under Section 5(3).
Whether the Deputy Collector, in a revision, could alter the subject matter of the original suit and direct a different right‑of‑way.
Whether the addition of parties (respondents 10‑12) at the revision stage violated procedural rules.
Whether the revisional authority may introduce new facts or a new claim not pleaded before the subordinate authority.

Subjects

right of wayMamlatdars’ Court Actrevision jurisdictionquash orderlandlocked agricultural fieldstatutory limitationrevisional authority

Judgment

C/SCA/586/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 586 of 2024
==========================================================
PATEL DINESHBHAI MOHANBHAI & ORS.
Versus
PATEL MORARBHAI KARSHANBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR MEET D KAKADIA(11896) for the Respondent(s) No.
2,3,4,5,6,7
MR VEDANT D GAIKWAD(10444) for the Respondent(s) No.
2,3,4,5,6,7
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,10,11,12
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 8,9
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

Date : 26/02/2026

ORDER
1. By way of present petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners
have sought for the following main relief:

“A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or directions directing quashing and setting
aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2023
passed by the respondent – Deputy Collector in
Mam. Court Revision Case No.01 of 2023.”

2. The facts of the case of the petitioners in
nutshell can be summarized as under:

2.1. That respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein – original
plaintiffs have filed a suit under Section 5 of the

Page 1 of 9
C/SCA/586/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

Mamlatdars’ Court Act against the petitioners herein
– original defendants seeking a way from the southern
side of land bearing Survey No.265/1, which belongs
to the petitioners, to enter their land bearing
Survey Nos. 270 and 269 of village Anavada, Taluka &
District Patan. It is the case of the plaintiffs –
respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein that they have an
ancestral way to reach their agricultural field,
which has been closed by the defendants – petitioners
herein before 10 days of institution of the suit.
Pursuant to the institution of suit by the
plaintiffs, a notice came to be issued to the
defendants and they have filed a detailed reply,
inter alia, denying the averments made in the plaint
as well as right of way of the plaintiffs. The
defendants have specifically stated that the
plaintiffs have purchased land bearing Survey Nos.
270 and 269 from the owners of Survey No.268 and they
have a right of way from that Survey No.268. After
considering and appreciating the materials available
on record, the suit of the plaintiffs came to be
dismissed by the Mamlatdar essentially on the ground
that as per the say of the plaintiffs themselves, the
way which is sought by them has not been used by them
since last 10 years and during the course of spot
inspection, the way, which is sought for by the
plaintiffs, is not in existence.

2.2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
said order, the plaintiffs – respondent Nos. 1 to 7

Page 2 of 9
C/SCA/586/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

herein have assailed the said order by preferring a
revision before the Deputy Collector, wherein, the
plaintiffs have completely changed their stand and
claimed the way from western side of Survey No.265
Paiki 1, which is going towards Survey No.271 and
thereafter to the field of the plaintiffs i.e. Survey
No.270. The said revision of the plaintiffs has been
allowed by the Deputy Collector by setting aside the
order of the Mamlatdar and directing the petitioners
to open the permanent old way which is on the western
side of Survey No.265 Paiki 1. Being aggrieved by the
said order of the Deputy Collector, present petition
is filed.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishit P. Gandhi for
the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Meet Kakadia
for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and learned AGP Mr. Jay
Trivedi for respondent Nos. 8 and 9. Though served,
none appears for respondent Nos. 10 to 12.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submits that by way
of instituting the suit, the plaintiffs – respondent
Nos. 1 to 7 herein have sought a right of way from
the southern side of land bearing Revenue Survey
No.165 Paiki 1, whereas, by preferring revision
before the Deputy Collector, the respondent Nos. 1 to
7 have completely changed their version and sought a
right of way from the western side of land bearing
Revenue Survey No.165 Paiki 1, which is not
permissible. He submits that the suit of the

Page 3 of 9
C/SCA/586/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

plaintiffs has been dismissed by the Mamlatdar by
specifically observing that the way which is sought
by the plaintiffs i.e. the way which is alleged to
have been used by the plaintiffs from western side of
land bearing revenue survey No.165 Paiki 1 has not
been used by the plaintiffs since last 10 years as
per their own admission. He has read the provisions
of Section 5(3) of the Mamlatdars’ Court Act and
submitted that the suit is required to be filed
within a period of six months from the date on which
the cause of action arose and therefore the Mamlatdar
has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs
keeping in mind the aforesaid provision of the Act.
In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr.
Gandhi has heavily put reliance upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Rohit Sunderlal Kabutarwala
v. Ashokkumar Somabhai, reported in 2016 JX(Guj) 72
as well as in the case of Kanjibhai Godadbhai
Chaudhary v. Virsang Fuljibhai Chaudhary, reported in
2023 JX(Guj) 28. He further submits that by
preferring a revision before the Deputy Collector,
the plaintiffs have sought altogether a different way
which is passing from western side of land bearing
Revenue Survey No.165 Paiki 1. He submits that the
said revision has been allowed by the Deputy
Collector. The view adopted by the Deputy Collector
is not just, fair and legal and based upon the sound
principle of law and therefore the order passed by
the Deputy Collector is required to be quashed and
set aside. He further submits that the Deputy

Page 4 of 9
C/SCA/586/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

Collector has also not appreciated the fact that
respondent Nos. 10 to 12 were not joined at the time
of institution of the suit and they have been joined
for the first time at the stage of revision and
therefore the revision ought not to have been
entertained by the Deputy Collector on the ground of
non-joinder and misjoinder of the parties. He further
submits that the plaintiffs had made a false
statement on oath before the revenue authorities and
suppressed material facts and the Deputy Collector
has not appreciated the said aspect at the time of
allowing the revision filed by the plaintiffs and
therefore the order passed by the Deputy Collector is
not maintainable. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi further
submits that it is well settled that while
entertaining a revision, the revisional authority is
not empowered to go beyond the scope of the
pleadings, introduce new facts and/or make out
completely a new case that was not argued before the
lower authority and by doing so the Deputy Collector
has exceeded its jurisdiction and therefore also the
order passed by the Deputy Collector is required to
be quashed and set aside and order passed by the
Mamlatdar is required to be upheld. In support of his
submission, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has put
reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Kakadia
for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 – original plaintiffs has

Page 5 of 9
C/SCA/586/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

submitted that the plaintiffs have a right of way to
approach their agricultural land through survey
No.265, which is sub-divided between the petitioners
and respondent Nos. 10 to 12 herein. The petitioners
as well as respondent Nos. 10 to 12 herein have, in
connivance with each other, tried to close the entire
right of way of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs have no
other alternative way to reach their agricultural
field and therefore the Deputy Collector has rightly
allowed the revision and directed the petitioners to
open the way passing from the western side of land
bearing Revenue Survey No.265 Paiki 1. He submits
that the order passed by the Deputy Collector is in
consonance with the provisions of the Mamlatdars’
Court Act as the objective of the Act is to ensure
that no field is left uncultivated for want of a way.
Therefore, the Deputy Collector could not be said to
have committed any error of law and/or facts, which
warrants any interference by this Court. He submits
that as a temporary arrangement between the parties,
on account of existence of two ways, some portion of
land remained to be uncultivated and therefore all
the parties agreed that respondents can use one way
out of two existing ways and the said position
continued for 10 years. However, the petitioners as
well as respondent Nos. 10 to 12 have, in connivance
with each other, closed both the ways and therefore
respondents are not in a position to reach their
land. He further submits that if the prayer as sought
for by the petitioner is to be considered, in that

Page 6 of 9
C/SCA/586/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

event, the land of the respondents would be
landlocked. He further submits that it is well
settled that when no way is available for a person to
reach his agricultural filed, in that event, as per
the provisions of the Act, the revenue authority
concerned is empowered to grant shortest possible
way. In support of his submissions, learned advocate
Mr. Kakadia has relied upon the decision of this
Court rendered in Civil Revision Application No.206
of 2014 on 24.06.2015 as well as decision in the case
of Faridmiya Majammiya Chavda v. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2015(0) AIJEL-HC-233667. He, therefore,
urges that the petition may be dismissed.

6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the
parties and having considered the materials placed on
record, it transpires that respondent Nos. 1 to 7
herein – original plaintiffs have filed a suit under
Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Court Act against the
petitioners herein seeking a way from the southern
boundary of land bearing Survey No.265/1, which is
situated on the eastern side of various parcels of
land of the plaintiffs. The said suit came to be
dismissed by the Mamlatdar by holding that as per the
say of the plaintiffs themselves, the way which is
sought for by them has been blocked since last 10
years. As per the provisions of Section 5(3) of the
Mamlatdars’ Court Act, the suit is required to be
filed within a period of six months from the date on
which the cause of action arose and therefore, in the

Page 7 of 9
C/SCA/586/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

opinion of this Court, the Mamlatdar has rightly
dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs keeping in mind
the aforesaid provision of the Act. The respondent
Nos. 1 to 7 herein have assailed the said order of
the Mamlatdar by way of preferring revision before
the Deputy Collector. It is pertinent to note that at
the time of preferring the revision, the respondent
Nos. 10 to 12 herein have been joined as party
respondents, though they were not joined by the
plaintiffs at the time of institution of the suit and
the plaintiffs have completely changed their version
before the Deputy Collector and sought an altogether
different way i.e. the way which is passing from
western boundary of land bearing Revenue Survey
No.265 Paiki 1, which is on the southern side of
various parcels of land of the plaintiffs. The Deputy
Collector has allowed the said revision by directing
the petitioners and respondent Nos. 10 to 12 herein
to allow the respondents to use the way which is
passing from western boundary of land bearing Revenue
Survey No.265 Paiki 1, which is on the southern side
of various parcels of land of the plaintiffs. Thus,
it transpires that the Deputy Collector has allowed
the revision by directing the petitioner and others
to open an altogether different way, which is not
claimed by the plaintiffs at the time of institution
of the suit. I have also gone through the village map
as well as satellige map produced by both the
parties. It is well settled that while exercising the
revisional powers, the revisional authority is

Page 8 of 9
C/SCA/586/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/02/2026

required to consider and appreciate the legality and
validity of the order of the subordinate authority
and it shall not go beyond the pleadings instituted
before the subordinate authority and introduce new
facts and/or make out completely a new case that was
not argued before the lower authority.

7. It is also pertinent to note that the suit of
the plaintiffs has been dismissed by the Mamlatdar
after appreciating and considering the materials and
documents placed on record as well as considering the
fact that the plaintiffs themselves have admitted
that the way, which is sought for by them has been
closed since last 10 years. Moreover, the way which
is claimed by the plaintiffs is also not in
existence. I have also gone through the orders passed
by both the revenue authorities and I am of the
considered view that the Deputy Collector has
exceeded his jurisdiction while issuing directions to
the petitioners and respondent Nos. 10 to 12 herein
to allow the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to use altogether
a different way which was not the subject matter of
the original suit. Thus, merely on the said ground,
the petition deserves consideration. Accordingly, the
petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the
Deputy Collector is hereby quashed and set aside.

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: LAVKUMAR JAYANTBHAI JANI(HC00210), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/03/2026 14:43:05

Page 9 of 9