( 1 ) SHRI H. P. Raval, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri L. R. Pujari, learned agp for the respondents no. 1,2 and 3, Shri dhirendra K. Mehta, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

( 2 ) THE short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the Bank of Baroda, somewhere in the year 1975 filed Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 1976 against Jayantilal Chunilal Modi and bhagvandas Chunilal Modi for recovery of principal amount of Rs. 7,000/- and interest thereon. The suit was ultimately decreed by the learned Civil Judge [senior Division], bharuch and decree was granted in favour of the Bank of Baroda against the said defendants. In the year 1981, Special darkhast/execution Application No. 23 of 1981 was filed by the Bank of Barodc against the Judgment Debtors for recovery of rs. 25,810/ -. As the money was not paid by the Judgment Debtors, certain properties of the Judgment Debtors which were mortgaged with the Bank were asked to be auctioned. On 19. 7. 83, a public notice was issued, notifying that Blocks No. 9259 and 9256 belonging to the Judgment Debtors would be auctioned to satisfy the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 1976. It was directed that auction would take place on 19. 8. 83. The petitioners participated in the said auction and offered sum of Rs. 9,500/-, which being the highest bid was accepted on 19. 8. 82. The matter was reported to the court and after hearing the parties, the court confirmed the sale in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 28. 9. 83. A certificate of sale [annexure:c] was issued by the Court on 5. 12. 83 in favour of the petitioners. After becoming the owners under the court sale, the petitioners informed to the Revenue Authorities about acquisition of their rights who in their turn, made entry no. 5009 on 20. 12. 83 in favour of the petitioner no. 1. On 13. 1. 84, entry no. 5013 was made in favour of the petitioner no. 2. On 22. 3. 84, the above referred entries no. 5009 and 5013 were certified.

( 3 ) ALMOST after lapse of 11 years from the Court auction and 10 years from the date of the entries and their certification, the respondent no. 4, namely Kanubhai jayantilal Modi [son of Judgment Debtor] filed a revision application in the Court of the Collector, throwing challenge to the entries no. 5009 and 5013. The petitioners challenged the maintainability of the revision application and also raised various grounds, but by order dated 14. 4. 94, the Collector, bharuch, vide impugned order [annexure:g] directed deletion of the entries.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Collector, Bharuch, the petitioners filed revision application before the respondent no. 2, which came to be rejected on 13. 11. 95. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Collector and the deputy Secretary [appeals], the petitioners are before this Court.

( 5 ) SHRI Harin P. Raval, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subordinate authorities did not properly appreciate the legal provisions and unnecessarily interfered into the entries. According to him, so long as the Court sale stands, the petitioners would continue to be the owners of the property irrespective of the fact that whether there is an entry or not. According to him, when property is transferred by the Court in a Court sale, then, it is transferred free from all encumbrances and Judgment Debtor though is not acting voluntarily, but the sale deed would be taken to be voluntary deed. His submission is that the sale effected by the court against the interest of Jayantilal chunilal Modi and Bhagvandas Chunilal Modi would bind their legal representatives, heirs and successors for all time to come. His submission is that if Jayantilal Chunilal Modi is bound by the Court sale, then, any person claiming through him would not be entitled to challenge the sale.

( 6 ) SHRI Dhirendra K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 on the other hand, submits that the respondent n