Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The fourth respondent, despite service of notice in the petition, has chosen not to appear. In any case, the said respondent, being one of the original owners of the land which has been sold long ago, is no longer the affected or interested party, therefore, there is no requirement of issuing notice of Rule to the said respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the petition be decided finally, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the Court proceeds to decide it.

2. The challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 18.06.2012, passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department ("SSRD"), the first respondent herein, confirming the order dated 04.10.2000, passed by the second respondent, Collector, Ahmedabad, whereby the order dated 29.12.1998, passed by the City Deputy Collector, the third respondent, has been quashed and set aside.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the land in question, bearing new Block No. 596, admeasuring 22764 square meters, situated at Mouje Bhadaj, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad, forming part of old Survey No. 582, admeasuring 1 Acre 15 Gunthas, was reflected as old tenure land and old Survey No. 585 admeasuring 4 Acres 10 Gunthas was described as new tenure land. Prior to 1998, the land was originally owned by twelve persons as a joint family property. One of the original owners, Shri Kalidas Maganbhai, present respondent No. 4, filed an application dated 04.04.1998 before the third respondent, seeking a correction of the revenue records, as a portion of the land was erroneously shown as new tenure land. By the order dated 29.12.1998, the City Deputy Collector, after conducting an inquiry under Section 197 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 ("the Code") and considering the Report of the Mamlatdar, directed that the entry recording that a portion of the land (admeasuring 4 Acres and 10 Gunthas) as new tenure, be deleted. Hence, the entire land of Block No. 596 became old tenure land. Mutation Entry No. 3085 was inserted in the revenue record on 30.12.1998, recording the effect of the order dated 29.12.1998 passed by the third respondent. On 29.06.1999, this entry came to be certified by the City Mamlatdar. The entire land now being of old tenure, the original land owners sold the land by way of a Registered Sale Deed dated 02.09.1999, to the present petitioners, for a consideration of Rs. 3,90,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Thousand Only). Clause 6 of the Sale Deed records the passing of the order dated 29.12.1998 by the third respondent, conversion of the entire land to old tenure, as well as the recording of Mutation Entry No. 3085 to this effect. As a result of the Sale Deed, Mutation Entry No. 3116 was recorded on 08.09.1999, whereby the land in question was mutated in the names of the petitioners. This entry was certified by the City Mamlatdar on 01.11.1999. However, the second respondent, taking the order dated 29.12.1998 of the third respondent in suo motu revision, issued a show cause notice dated 11.05.2000, only to one of the original owners of the land, respondent No. 4 herein. Though the names of the petitioners had already been entered in the revenue record as purchasers of the property and the entry to this effect had been certified, no show cause notices were issued to them. Before the Collector, respondent No. 4 appeared initially, but did not remain present during the subsequent dates of hearing. The second respondent passed the impugned order dated 04.12.2000, in the absence of respondent No. 4, setting aside the order dated 29.12.1998 passed by the third respondent. On 06.12.2000, respondent No. 4 filed a revision application before the SSRD, challenging the order dated 0