Judgment Bankim.N. Mehta, J.—The petitioners have filed this revision application and challenged the order passed by Deputy Collector, Gondal on 31.5.2010 in Mamlatdars’ Court Revision Case No. 8 of 2009-10. 2. The petitioners are holding agricultural lands bearing survey No. 123/1 paiki admeasuring 39 acre and 37 gunthas and Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are holding agricultural land bearing survey No. 130-p.3, 130/6, 126/4, 126/1, 126/5 and 130/7 respectively of village Vadasada, Tal: Jetpur. The Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 filed an application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act contending that there is only one road to go to their agricultural lands through boundary (sheda) of the agricultural lands of the petitioners and they have been using the same since about 50 years to go to their agricultural lands and Respondent Jilubhai has laid pipelines on such road. It was also contended that the petitioners have no right to obstruct their right of way, but have obstructed their way and hence, prayed that the petitioners may be directed to remove the obstruction put on the road and not to damage the pipelines passing through the road and also prayed for interim relief. The Mamlatdar, Jetpur by order dated 10.7.2008, granted ad interim relief in respect of boundary of survey No. 124 paiki. Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 thereafter made an application to the Mamlatdar for correction of error in mention of survey No. 124 and the Mamlatdar, without issuing notice and affording opportunity of hearing, modified the order dated 10.7.2008 and corrected survey No. 124 as serial No. 123/1 paiki. Therefore, the petitioners filed Revision Case No. 5 of 2009-10 before the Deputy Collector under Section 23 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. After hearing the parties, by order dated 29.10.2009, the Deputy Collector partly allowed the revision case and directed the Mamlatdar to dispose of the case as early as possible. Pursuant to the order, Mamlatdar, Jetpur, after hearing the advocates for the parties, passed the order dated 12.3.2010 and granted the relief claimed in the application. The petitioners challenged the said order before the Deputy Collector, Gondal by filing Revision Case No. 8 of 2009-10. The parties filed written submissions. The Deputy Collector, after considering written submissions of the parties, passed the impugned order and dismissed the revision application. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. The petitioners challenged the said order before the Deputy Collector, Gondal by filing Revision Case No. 8 of 2009-10. The parties filed written submissions. The Deputy Collector, after considering written submissions of the parties, passed the impugned order and dismissed the revision application. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, this revision application is taken up for final hearing today. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the authority is not a speaking order and hence, the finding recorded is perverse. He has also submitted that panchnama produced on the record of the case is made behind the back of the petitioners and therefore, the panchnama is not binding to them. He has also submitted that the authority below has not considered the contentions raised by the petitioners and therefore, the authority has committed error in exercising jurisdiction vested in him and therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Purohit for Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 has submitted that the petitioners had also filed civil suit for injunction against the Respondents and took out injunction application for interim relief of injunction restraining them from using the road in question, but the civil Court has rejected the injunction application and appeal preferred against such order is also dismissed. He has also submitted that the impugned order is supported by reasons and the petitioners have not been able to indicate that the authority has committed error in exercising jurisdiction vested in it and therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order and the revision application is required to be dismissed. He has relied upon the decision in the case of Beleview Associations vs. Ambalal Hirabhai Prajapati and Others reported in 2006 (1) GLH 424 . 6. It was the case of the Respondents before the Mamlatdar that they have been using the road in question since about 50 years to go to their agricultural lands and there is no other way to go to their agricultural lands. The impugned order indicates that Talati-cum-Mantri of village Vadasada drew panchnama of the road in dispute and obtained opinion of Circle Officer, Jetpur. The impugned order indicates that Talati-cum-Mantri of village Vadasada drew panchnama of the road in dispute and obtained opinion of Circle Officer, Jetpur. It also indicates that the Mamlatdar himself visited the road in question and verified the facts and after considering the same, made a report that there was a way as claimed by the Respondents and the petitioners have made obstruction on the way. It also appears from the impugned order passed in the revision case that the revisional authority considered the documentary evidence produced on the record of the Mamlatdar and came to a conclusion that no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Mamlatdar. 7. In view of above, it clearly emerges that the impugned order is supported by reasons and no error is committed by the Deputy Collector in exercising the jurisdiction. It also appears that the authorities have dealt with all the contentions raised by the parties and therefore, the submissions in this regard made by Learned Advocate for the petitioners cannot be accepted. In the decision of Beleview Associations (Supra), this Court has held that Mamlatdar has power to get the obstruction removed when such obstruction results into deprivation of agricultural land for cultivation. In the instant case, it appears that the Respondents had the only way to go to their agricultural lands through the road in question and the petitioners had created obstruction in their right of way. The petitioners also tried to restrain the Respondents from using the road in question by filing civil suit and taking out injunction Application, but the application was also dismissed. The Mamlatdar on appreciation of evidence adduced before him, came to conclusion that there was a right of way of the Respondents and the petitioners had obstructed such right. The revisional authority also recorded that no jurisdictional error is committed by the Mamlatdar in exercising power vested in him. The Learned Advocate for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy me that the revisional authority has committed error in exercising the power vested in him. Therefore, the revision application requires to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.