1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31st August 2008 passed by the Mamlatdar on or after 30th September 2008. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Mamlatdar to certify the Entry No. 21389 registered in the revenue record. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner with ten other persons filed a Civil Suit No. 3 of 2008 before the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Sanand for declaration and injunction against one Arvindbhai Harilal Raval and five other persons. In the said suit the plaintiffs and the defendants are the legal heirs of Jivanbhai Lallubhai Raval. Since there was some family dispute regarding the land of Khata no. 731,1439 and 1440 situated in the sim of Sanand village, Taluka, Sanand, the above suit was filed.

2. The complete details of the dispute between the parties in the Civil Suit are given in the " Lis pendens" No. 2206 dated 24th March 2008 which was produced before the Talati, to post appropriate entry in the revenue record and to bring it on revenue record. That Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 2008 is pending before the Civil Court, Sanand for the land in dispute. Therefore, Kacha entry No. 21389 was posted in the revenue record. A copy of the said entry was issued on 30th September 2008 from the office of the Deputy Mamlatdar Sanand. It is, therefore, presumed that the Revenue record shows the said Kacha entry till 30th September 2008. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the Mamlatdar,Sanand passed an order and cancelled the said entry after 30th September 2008, but posted the date of the order of cancellation of the entry as 31st August 2008.

3. It is therefore, the case of the petitioner that the Mamlatdar created bogus record only with a view to protect some third party's interest i.e interest of one Prabhudas Ishwardas Patel and one Ajitbhai Thakorbhai Desai, who have purchased some of the disputed land of Khata no. 731 by registered Sale Deed No. 5896 executed on 11th September 2008 from one Arvind Harilal Rava and one Mrs Padmaben Harilal Raval. This was done only with a view to show that the said purchasers are the bonafide purchasers of the land in question and on the day on which they have purchased the said property there was no entry regarding Lis pendens.

4. It is this order of the Mamlatdar which is under challenge in the present petition.

5. Mr Mahesh Bhavsar learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the Mamlatdar is contrary to the provisions of law. It is further submitted that Lis Pendens is registered under Section 18 of the Registration Act. Thereafter, the said 'Lis pendens' was given to the revenue authority to enter the said registered document in the revenue record. Once the registered document is there pertaining to the property in question, it is obligatory on the part of the Mamlatdar to enter the same in the revenue record. It is further submitted that the record itself shows that the Mamlatdar passed the backdated order with a view to give illegal benefit to some third party. He has further submitted that the order of cancellation of entry regarding 'Lis pendens' passed by the Mamlatdar is contrary to decision of this Court in the case of Dipakbhai Manilal Patel & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr reported in 2007(2) GLR 1297, wherein it is held that if the provisions of section 52 read with amendment for Gujarat State are considered, the principles of Lis pendens would apply to a transaction if entered after institution of suit only, if such notice of Lis pendens is registered under the Registeration Act, 1908 and as per the provisions of the amendment, the notice of pendency of the suit should contain the details as per sub-section (2) of the amendment in Section 52, which is applicable to the Gujarat State. The essential purpose of the aforesaid amendment is to see that an