( 1 ) LEAVE to delete Respondent No. 7 from Special Civil Application No. 8559/2005.

( 2 ) WITH the consent of the parties, both the matters are taken up for final hearing today and as in both the petitions there are more or less common issues and common challenge, they are being considered together by this common order.

( 3 ) RULE. Mr. A. J. Patel, learned Counsel appears for the private respondents and waives service of notice of Rule. Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP appears for State authorities and waives service of notice of Rule for respondent authorities.

( 4 ) UPON hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that the common question arise for consideration of the Court is as to whether the entry mutated on the basis of the registered sale deed could have been ordered to be cancelled by the authority in toto or the authority ought to have allowed the revenue entry to be continued with the qualification and clarification that the same would be subject to the outcome of the proceedings of civil suit which is pending before the concerned competent court.

( 5 ) AS such it appears that there is no dispute on the point of the factual aspects regarding the existance of the registered sale deeds. However, the authority of the person who has executed the registered sale deed is disputed and the validity of the registered sale deed is not challenged in the civil suit No. 497/2002. There is also no dispute on the point that the entry was initially entered in the revenue record and upon the objection, the Mamlatdar upheld the objections and the entry was not taken on record. There is also no dispute on the point that the Dy. Collector in appeal restored the entry, whereas the Collector as well as the State Government in revision cancelled the entry and directed for remand for considering the legality and validity of the transaction, succession by will and other aspects and under these circumstances, the present petition.

( 6 ) AS such the issue involved in this petition is covered by the decision of this Court in case of "jayantilal Jethalal Soni v. State of Gujarat" dated 28. 9. 2004 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12547/2004. The relevant observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decision at paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 are as under:"7. IT appears that if a registered sale deed is executed by the holder of the land, it confers the right pertaining to the land in question in favour of the purchaser of the land and, therefore, the rights pertaining to the land in question in normal circumstances can be said to have been acquired over the land in question for which recording is required to be made in the revenue record. It is also well settled that the revenue entries are having value only for fiscal purpose and more particularly for the purpose of recovery of revenue and it neither confers any right or title over the property, nor does it take away the right or title in the property which otherwise cannot be available under the law. However, the question which arises for the consideration is if a sale deed is executed by the holder of the land which runs prima facie counter to the other statutory provisions of other enactment or is barred under the other enactment or it alters or disturbs the rights of the persons under the other enactment then, can the revenue authority shut its eyes by ignoring such flagrant violation of such law or if it is considered, what will be the proper course to be followed ? In case of "evergreen Apartment Co-op. Housing Society" (supra), this Court has expressed the view that it is not open to the revenue authority exercising power under the Code to exercise power under the other enactment and to decide in respect to the breaches which are committed under the other enactment and thereby to uncertify the entry or to cancel the entry made in the revenue record. In case of "janardan D. Patel v. State of Gujarat" (supra) at para 11, it has been observed as under:"11.