Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Dhansukhbhai Jerambhai Prajapati and another, filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenging the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 12.01.2026, which dismissed their writ petition. The writ petition had challenged orders dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906, and the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Valsad, in Revision Case No.02 of 2024. The dispute concerned a right of way claimed by the respondent No.1, Gumansinh Bhikhubhai Desai, over the appellants' land bearing Survey Nos. 247 and 248 (old Survey Nos. 195/1 and 195/2) at Village Vejalpur, Taluka and District Valsad. The appellants contended that the respondent No.1 had an alternative way through the land of one Rahulbhai Desai (Survey No.246) and had even signed an MOU with him on 22.08.2023. However, the Mamlatdar and the Collector concurrently found that the respondent No.1 had no alternative access and had been using the way through the appellants' land for agricultural operations. The learned Single Judge upheld these findings. In the appeal, the Division Bench noted that the concurrent findings of fact by the Mamlatdar and Collector were based on evidence and not perverse. The Court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference. The appeal was dismissed, and the civil application for stay was also disposed of.
Headnote
A) Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 - Right of Way - Section 5 - Existence of Way - The Mamlatdar and Collector concurrently found that the respondent No.1 had a right of way through the appellants' land as there was no alternative access. The High Court in Letters Patent Appeal declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, holding that the appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity or jurisdictional error. (Paras 1-10) B) Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 - Alternative Remedy - Section 5 - The appellants contended that the respondent No.1 had an alternative way through Rahulbhai Desai's land, but the Mamlatdar and Collector found that such way was not available. The High Court upheld the finding that the respondent No.1 had no other reasonable access. (Paras 2-8) C) Letters Patent Appeal - Interference - Limited Scope - The Court reiterated that in an intra-court appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. No such ground was made out. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the Mamlatdar's order granting a right of way to the respondent No.1 through the appellants' land, and whether the appellants had an alternative remedy.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The civil application for stay also stands disposed of.
Law Points
- Mamlatdars' Courts Act
- 1906
- Section 5
- Right of way
- Alternative access
- Concurrent findings
- Letters Patent Appeal
- Interference limited
