N.V. Anjaria, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr. Rohan Shah for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Divyangna Jhala for the respondent - State and its authorities as well as learned advocate Mr. Manan Bhatt for respondent No.3.

2. This petition is directed against order dated 06th February, 2016 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad, whereby Revision Application No.57 of 2010 preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed and order dated 07th August, 2010 of Collector, Surat, was confirmed.

3. The dispute dealt with by the revenue authorities was in respect of Mutation Entry Nos.6216 and 6215. The relevant facts were that the land bearing Block No.889/A at Village Sevani, Taluka Kamrej was in the name of one Vitthalbhai Patel. Said Vitthalbhai executed registered sale deed No.1054 dated 23rd March, 2007 in favour of the present petitioners. In pursuance of this registered transaction, Entry No.6216 was made in the revenue record on 10th May, 2017. Before that, on 08th May, 2007, another Entry No.6215 holding the encumbrance was mutated.

3.1 It appears that Power of Attorney o the said Vitthalbhai gave application dated 26th June, 2007 to object the said Entries, upon which Mamlatdar, Kamrej, treated the Entries as disputed. By order dated 08th January, 2008, Mamlatdar cancelled the said Entries. Thereafter the petitioner preferred Appeal before the Deputy Collector, Olpad, which was transferred to Deputy Collector, Prant Bardoli. The Deputy Collector dismissed the Appeal on 25th August, 2009. Further Appeal No.152 of 2009 before the Collector was also not accepted. The Collector observed that outcome of the civil litigation pending between the parties would be binding to them.

3.2 Thereupon filed Revision Application to challenge the order of the Collector, culminating into the impugned order.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the impugned order. He submitted that since the Entry in favour of the petitioner was mutated pursuant to registered sale transaction, all the three authorities committed concurrent error in not approving the Entry. He submitted that by virtue of the registered sale deed, the petitioner became owner and therefore, he was entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue records. He submitted that even civil suit is pending, therefore, unless the other side succeeds in the civil suit; Entry could not have been obliterated from the revenue records.

4.1 On the other hand, learned advocate for respondent No.3 - the objector to the Entry submitted that entire sale transaction was fraudulent in nature. He submitted about the criminal proceedings initiated and the police complaint which was filed. He further submitted that the document of sale was not genuine and was not admitted by them. He also raised question about the legality of power of attorney and further submitted that the consideration had not passed as claimed. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also supported the impugned order.

5. There is no escape from the fact that Entry No.6216 was entered in the revenue records upon the sale transaction of registered deed. Once there was a registered transaction, error could not be booked on the part of the revenue authorities in mutating the names of the respective owners of the land - the vendors.

5.1 It is trite that whenever a registered transaction takes place, it ought to be reflected in form of Mutation Entry. The transaction shall have to be accepted for entry to became part of the revenue records when based on the registered document. It is not only the registered Sale Deed but any registered document that could become basis for validly making the Mutation Entry. This is statutorily contemplated by virtue of Second Proviso to Section 135-C of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, when it says that, any person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document shall be exempted from the obligation to report to the designated officer.

5.2 The principl