JUDGMENT : 1. Present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of claiming the following reliefs: (A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application. (B) Your Lordship may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the respondent no.3 on dated 21.10.2019 which is annexed as annexure A to this petition in the interest of justice. (C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of the petition this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay implementation, execution and operation of the judgment and order passed by the respondent no.3 on dated 21.10.2019 which is annexed as annexure A to this petition in the interest of justice. (D) …….” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 had filed a suit under the provisions of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, essential under Section 5 of the Act before the respondent No.2 Authority claiming that he is an occupier of the land situated at village Sarsa, bearing Revenue Survey No.1609. The petitioner herein was the original respondent before the authority occupying the agricultural land bearing Block No.1621 of the same village. It is further the case of the petitioner that the present respondent No.1 was using the road which was passing from the field of the petitioner. On 5.6.2018, as asserted in the suit by the respondent No.1 that the petitioner has placed metal door and thereby closed the road and based upon which, the suit came to be filed on the premise that there is no alternative way to the respondent No.1 going into his suit land, i.e. land bearing Survey No.1609 of village Sarsa, except from the field belonging to the petitioner. Based upon this assertion in the suit filed by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 authority had issued a notice and direction was given to the Talati/ Circle officer for drawing a panchnama which came to be prepared on 6.12.2018, in which reflection is given that there is no road available for the farmers and occupiers of the land bearing Survey No.1609 from the land bearing Survey No.1621. Both the contesting parties before the respondent No.2 raised their contentions, led evidence and learned Mamlatdar passed an order in favour of the petitioner and it is the case of the petitioner that feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by learned Mamlatdar, the private respondent preferred revision application before the No.3 which came to be allowed and by virtue of the said order, the respondent No.3 directed the police authority to open the road in favour of the respondent No.1 and it is this order passed by respondent No.3 which is made the subject matter of the present petition before this Court. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 29.10.2019, the Court was pleased to issue notice and by a reasoned order, granted ad-interim relief to maintain the status-quo as on today till the next date of hearing and thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time with continued interim relief and lastly, it came up for consideration before this Court, in which both learned advocates have requested the Court to take up the matter for final disposal at this stage and upon such request and with consent, the Court has heard the matter. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Japan V. Dave appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has been contended that the respondent No.3 has failed to appreciate the relevant material, oral as well as documentary evidence on record, and thereby erroneously exercised the jurisdiction. The order suffers from vice of non-application of mind. It has been further contended that the most relevant aspect of the case is that there is a panchnama drawn by the Talati/ Circle Officer from the office of the Mamlatdar, wherein it is categorically stated that there is no road across from the field of the petitioner, i.e. Block/ Survey No.1621, and therefore, the respondent No.3 has failed to visualize the effort of the respondent of creating a new road. It has further been contended vehemently that there is an alternative way available, not one but more and all rights are available for the respondent from Survey Nos.1618, 1620 and 1621 and it is only with a view to disturb the petitioner, an attempt is made to create a new road. Mr. It has further been contended vehemently that there is an alternative way available, not one but more and all rights are available for the respondent from Survey Nos.1618, 1620 and 1621 and it is only with a view to disturb the petitioner, an attempt is made to create a new road. Mr. Dave has further submitted that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the respondent No.3 has not appreciated the scope of revisional jurisdiction as stipulated under the provisions of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, (‘the Act’ for short). 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has further contended that there is one letter received by the petitioner from respondent No.1 on 25.10.2019 before which the petitioner received an order from the respondent No.3 and in the said letter, it was indicated that the respondent No.1 will come to the suit land on 1.11.2019 and he will personally open the road by JCB machine. So, this is nothing but a collusive attempt by the respondent against the petitioner which aspect has not been appreciated since the police protection was also sought on 1.11.2019. That being the position, the very exercise of jurisdiction is vitiated. Mr. Dave has submitted that on the contrary, the suit itself is defective and not filed on the touchstone of requirement of Section 4(A) of the Act. The period of filing the suit has not been maintained as the same has been filed only on 30.8.2018. Therefore, on the basis of defective plaint, no order could have been passed. Apart from that, it has been contended that the very premise on which the suit was brought is ill-founded. In fact, the authority who passed the order impugned in the petition has not visualized several material documents and ultimately relied upon some of the documents which were not forming part of the record before learned Mamlatdar and therefore, it has been contended that to rely upon the documents, that too in revisional jurisdiction is impermissible and therefore, requested the Court not to allow the impugned order to be sustained in the eye of law. Mr. Mr. Dave has submitted that the affidavits which are sought to be relied upon were also not forming part of the record before learned Mamlatdar at the time when the suit was adjudicated and therefore, this is nothing but a clear concoction on the part of the respondent to see that somehow the road across the field of the petitioner can be carved out. According to the petitioner, the map which is forming part on page 13 of the petition compilation is also indicating that there is a major road and when alternative road is available, it is hardly permissible that the Revisional Authority curved out the road from across the field of the petitioner. There are two alternative roads according to the petitioner available, one from Sarsa-Rasol road and another from the boundaries of Survey Nos.1630 and 1628. That being so, the attempt on the part of the respondent ought not to have been encouraged. In fact, the respondent has filed a frivolous suit only with a view to see that his relatives’ land bearing Survey Nos.1630 and 1628 are not to be disturbed and by creating the documents in the form of affidavit and thereby, a clear attempt is made. The manner in which the order is passed and the photographs which are clearly indicating such conduct are enough for the Revisional Authority not to exercise the discretion and as such, the order impugned is absolutely not sustainable. Additionally, from the panchkyas, reflected on page 47, as well as from the order of learned Mamlartdar, it has been contended that when one Sodhaben Dineshbhai’s land is very much available, an attempt is made to create a way and in any case, it has been vehemently contended that to rely upon the documents which were not forming part of the record before learned Mamlatdar who passed the order in favour of the petitioner, and that too in revisional jurisdiction, is not permissible and therefore, at the best, the case must have been remanded instead of passing an order and as such, Mr. Dave has earnestly requested that since fresh material is relied upon in the revision, the matter may be remanded back to the respondent No.3 and to re-examine the issue and to pass fresh order in the interest of justice. 5. As against the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Dave has earnestly requested that since fresh material is relied upon in the revision, the matter may be remanded back to the respondent No.3 and to re-examine the issue and to pass fresh order in the interest of justice. 5. As against the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Vikram J. Thakor appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent has vehemently contended that this petition is basically under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and as such, when the Revisional Authority has exercised the discretion, the said order impugned in the petition may not be disturbed. It has been contended that in any case, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the authority has relied upon and considered the documents at length and the order is passed after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, that being so, now, it is not open for the petitioner to raise such contention in the petition. Mr. Thakor has filed detailed affidavit-in-rely, pointing out that there is no error committed by the authority since the documents in question are very much examined by the Revisional Authority, i.e. respondent No.3, and therefore, if the order is passed in brief, the said sole reason may not be a circumstance to invalidate the order which has been passed. In fact, from the bare reading of the order of the Revisional Authority, not only the panchnama but the physical examination was also taken into consideration and as such, when there is no right available for the respondent, an order came to be passed which order cannot be said to be erroneous in any form. It has further been contended that ultimately, if the petitioner wants any protection, then grievance of the petitioner is amenable to the Civil Court for claiming the relief, as ultimate outcome of the Civil Court would be binding upon both the parties and as such, it is always open for the petitioner to avail a remedy of the Civil Court for ventilating the grievance. Mr. Thakor has submitted that the documents are very much placed before the authority and as such, no error is said to have been committed in any form. However, ultimately, Mr. Mr. Thakor has submitted that the documents are very much placed before the authority and as such, no error is said to have been committed in any form. However, ultimately, Mr. Thakor candidly has submitted that what documents were not forming part of the record before the Mamlatdar who passed the original order and as such, left the matter to the discretion of this Court on this issue. Mr. Thakor has reiterated that the order passed by the respondent is a well-considered order and therefore, the same may not be disturbed in the interest of justice. However, be that as it may, Mr. Thakor has candidly submitted that if ultimately the alternative submission of learned advocate for the petitioner is to be considered, then in that case, sometime bound schedule be prescribed for taking fresh decision, so that time may not be wasted in ensuing crop season. No other submissions have been made. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, as against the aforesaid submissions, has submitted that the Revisional Authority has exercised the discretion vested in law and has considered the material placed before him and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any irregularity in exercising the discretion. But, the issues whether the suit is maintainable or not in view of the provisions contained under the Act about the time schedule and further, whether straightway, fresh material can be considered before the Revisional Authority or not, are the issues to be examined and no much resistance is shown before the Court and therefore, by raising a formal objection, the matter is left to the discretion of this Court. 7. 7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through both the orders passed by the authorities in co-relation with the documents which have been placed on record of the Court and on that basis, following circumstances are not possible to be unnoticed by this Court :- (1) Perusal of the order in origin passed by learned Mamlatdar is indicating clearly that while exercising the discretion, learned Mamlatdar has perused the physical verification reflecting in the Panchkyas of the spot in question and simultaneously, has also considered the fact that the respondent herein is having a way on the Western side of Survey Nos.1602 and 1608 and therefore, it has been clearly concluded on the basis of the Panchnama and on the basis of the statement recorded on physical verification and on the basis of the fact that the respondent is having alternative way, the order came to be passed by rejecting the plaint and it has been submitted that if the respondent wants to curve out a way, he can avail the remedy of Civil Court and therefore, even time has also been granted in the order in original. (2) A fact is further noticed by the Court that few documents undisputedly have been placed on record before the respondent No.3, who exercised the revisional jurisdiction and after perusing the said documents afresh, i.e. sale deeds dated 18.4.1947 as well as 1.5.1940 and thereby has exercised the revisional jurisdiction and therefore, that circumstance was not before learned Mamlatdar who passed the order in origin. As such, it appears to this Court that fresh material is placed before the Revisional Authority and the same is considered and thereby set aside the exercise done by learned Mamlatdar who had no opportunity to examine the same. 8. From the overall material on record, it appears that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the substantial consideration is an examination of the registered documents of 1940 as well as 1947 as indicated above, reflected on page 4. Except that, there appears to be no other independent discussion nor any subjective satisfaction on the issues which have been raised by the petitioner. Except that, there appears to be no other independent discussion nor any subjective satisfaction on the issues which have been raised by the petitioner. It further appears that these documents were placed afresh and to substantiate that, the affidavits have been filed at a later point of time, which affidavits are also not subject matter of scrutiny before learned Mamlatdar and therefore to substantial extent, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be justified. 9. Further, learned authority has not considered the factum of alternative way available to the respondent No.1 nor has examined the issue related to maintainability of the suit under Section 5 of the Act and that being the position, it appears that there is a non-dealing of the detailed contentions which have been taken before the authority. So, from the overall consideration of record, some of the issues related to alternate way related to maintainability of the suit and further whether straightway, by placing fresh material, the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked by the respondent No.1, are the issues which require to be re-examined by the authority. Non-dealing of the contentions and non-assigning of the reasons as well as non-consideration of the relevant material are the substantial grounds on which the authorities are expected to re-examine and therefore, the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner to remand the proceedings back to learned Mamlatdar appears to be sounding justified and that is why, it appears that learned advocate for the contesting respondent has candidly submitted and left the matter to the discretion of the Court. 10. Even learned Assistant Government Pleader, who initially tried to justify the order, has also not disputed the fact that the documents in the form of sale deeds as well as the affidavit were not produced before learned Mamlatdar, who passed the order in origin and as such, keeping in view the revisional jurisdiction, the fact as to whether alternative way is available or not ought to have been dealt with. Further, there appears to be no substantial reasons at all assigned by the respondent No.3 on vital issues which were raised before him. Further, there appears to be no substantial reasons at all assigned by the respondent No.3 on vital issues which were raised before him. Hence, this circumstance has lack of non-dealing of the contentions and non-assigning of proper reasons, which are not possible to be ignored by this Court and therefore, considering the overall circumstance and in view of the broad consensus, the authority, i.e. respondent No.3, is required to reconsider all these issues within a framework of the revisional jurisdiction and it is expected to pass a fresh order after assigning proper reasons. Since assigning of reasons is well recognized as part and parcel of the principle of natural justice, the order in question deserves to be corrected. While arriving at this conclusion, the Court is mindful of the recent propositions of law on the issue of assigning of reasons from the decisions of the Apex Court, which are reported in (2019) 5 SCC 744 and (2019) 5 SCC 149 . So, in view of the aforesaid peculiar background of facts, the case is made out by the petitioner for disposal of the petition by remanding the matter back to the Revisional Authority. 11. From the aforesaid discussion and in view of the circumstances peculiar in nature prevailing on record, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned in the petition deserves to be quashed and set aside and simultaneously, the respondent No.3 is required to re-examine the issue in light of the aforesaid submissions and shall consider the same and shall pass a reasoned order after dealing with the rival contentions and as such, the present petition stands disposed of with the following directions which would meet the ends of justice :- (1) The impugned order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the Deputy Collector, Anand, i.e. respondent No.3 herein, is hereby quashed and set aside and as a consequence thereof, the respondent No.3 is directed to re-examine and re-decide the Revision Application under Section 23(2) of the Act strictly in accordance with law and also keeping in view the scope of revisional jurisdiction and after dealing with all material, which is now available, to pass a fresh reasoned order. (2) Since the impugned order is set aside with a direction to reconsider for passing a fresh order, this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit with regard to the rival contentions of the respective sides since the same are to be considered afresh and dealt with by the Revisional Authority, i.e. respondent No.3 herein, and therefore, uninfluenced by any of the circumstance, respondent No.3 is directed to re-decide the Revision Application after giving adequate opportunities to the parties to the proceedings. (3) Since this dispute is related to the road in question and agricultural operation in the fields may not be disturbed for quite some time, this process of reconsideration and taking a fresh decision shall have to be concluded by the respondent No.3 within a period of FOUR MONTHS from the date of receipt of writ of this Court and till then, with the broad consensus, status-quo which has been ordered to be maintained by the High Court by virtue of the order dated 29.10.2019 and which has been continued throughout till disposal of the present petition, be continued till fresh decision is taken by the authority and the parties are bound to abide by the said status-quo till fresh decision. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, present petition stands DISPOSED OF.