1. Rule. Mr. Jigar Raval, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondents No.7 and 8. Ms. Nisha Thakore waives service of rule on behalf of respondents No.1 to 6. Since all the learned advocates for the respective parties have argued the matter at length with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is finally disposed of by this judgment.

2. This petition is directed against the order dated 5th December, 2012 made by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “the revisional authority”) in Revision No.MVV/HKP/VDD/45/2008 whereby the order dated 15th May, 2008 made by the Collector, Vadodara has been quashed and set aside and Mutation Entry No.1796 in respect of land bearing Revenue Survey No.141/2 of mauje Nagarwada, taluka Vadodara has been confirmed.

3. Land bearing Survey No.141/2 of village Nagarwada, taluka and district Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”) came to be purchased by the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 31st July, 2001. In respect to disputes relating to the said land, Special Civil Suit No.1044/2001 and Regular Civil Suit No.689/2001 came to be instituted. In the said suits, more particularly, Regular Civil Suit No.689/2001, compromise terms were drawn on 20th March, 2003 and a compromise decree dated 21st March, 2003 came to be passed in terms thereof. The compromise decree, inter alia, was to the effect that the seventh and eighth respondents as well as the petitioner, who were the defendants No.3, 4 and 5 respectively in Regular Civil Suit No.689/2001 were in joint possession of the subject land and shall have development rights, whereas the ownership of the subject land was of the seventh respondent (defendant No.3 in the suit) alone.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 22nd March, 2003, the seventh respondent – Mukesh Jamnadas Shah applied for non-agricultural use permission declaring on affidavit that the subject land was owned by him and in his possession and suppressing the fact that the land was in the joint possession of the petitioner and the seventh and eighth respondents. Pursuant to the said application, the Collector, Vadodara, on 30th June, 2003 granted N.A. permission in the name of the seventh respondent alone. Subsequently, on 1st November, 2003, Mutation Entry No.1752 came to be posted in the revenue record recording the compromise dated 21st March, 2003, more particularly, the joint possession of the petitioner and the seventh and eight respondents. The said mutation entry came to be certified on 4th December, 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that fraudulently and behind the back of the petitioner, the seventh respondent interpolated, fabricated and concocted another Mutation Entry No.1752, which was contrary to the above referred compromise decree. By the said mutation entry, it was recorded that both the ownership and possession of the subject land is of the seventh respondent and thereby, the fact of joint possession of the subject land of the petitioner and the eighth respondent was removed.

5. On 3rd July, 2004, the petitioner had granted power of attorney to the eighth respondent – Upendrasinh Pratapsinh Gohil, inter alia, for the purpose of developing the subject land and signing/executing the documents in favour of third parties, viz., the purchasers of tenements/flats/shops/offices constructed on the subject land. Such power of attorney was granted in view of the fact that the petitioner was also one of the partners in the partnership firm putting up the construction. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the said power of attorney, the petitioner had not given any authority to transact his rights qua joint possession on the land which he had got in pursuance of the compromise decree. Subsequently, on 4th November, 2004, the petitioner through his advocate addressed a notice to his power of attorney, viz. the eighth respondent a