VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. The appellant original petitioner preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against oral order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11649 of 2017, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition by imposing cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

2. The facts of the present case in nutshell are as under:

2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and occupier of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.420 admeasuring 107-37-00 Hector-Are-Sq. Meters situated at Village Khojbal, Taluka Vagra, District Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question'). The said land in question is inherited by the petitioner through succession. It is stated that originally, the said land was described as Survey No.12 before consolidation and, thereafter, it was numbered as Survey No.44. After resurvey, it has been numbered as Survey No.420. The land in question was running in the name of Manecksha Dhunjisha since 1939-40. He was the owner of the said land. Manecksha Dhunjisha had three brothers, namely, (1) Jamshedji Dhunjisha, (2) Khe khsharu Dhunjisha and (3) Rustamji Dhunjisha. One of the brothers of Manecksha Dhunjisha had filed Regular Civil Suit No.158 of 1944 for partition. During the pendency of the said suit, compromise was arrived at between the parties.

Accordingly, decree had been drawn. However, the said partition was never effected in metes and bounds and, therefore, the land in question remained in the name of Manecksha.

2.2 It is stated that so-called Power of Attorney holder of Rustamji Dhunjisha sold the land in question to respondent Nos.1 and 2 by registered Sale Deed on 14.07.1956, though he had no right to execute the said Sale Deed. Mutation Entry No.992 came to be effected. However, the same was cancelled on 22.10.1956 on the ground that the sale transaction was in violation of provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, ("the Fragmentation Act" for short) and also on the ground that respondent No.1 is non-agriculturist. Against the said order, Revision Application was preferred before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD). The SSRD remanded the matter to the Prant Officer, Bharuch. It is further stated that Manecksha was not having any legal heir and, therefore, he executed a Will in favour of his brother Rustamji Dhunjisha on 28.10.1956. Manecksha had expired on 26.01.1958 and, therefore, Rustamji Dhunjisha became the owner of the land in question by virtue of the said Will. Thereafter, Rustamji Dhunjisha had also expired on 27.08.1959. However, Entry No.1107 dated 07.08.1960 came to be mutated in the name of Rustamji Dhunjisha and the land in question was inherited by his son, Dhunjisha Rustamji and, therefore, Succession Entry No.1108 came to be mutated into the revenue record.

2.3 It is further stated that the Prant Officer, Bharuch, passed an order on 13.07.1971 in remand proceedings and, thereby, granted post facto sanction to the sale transaction dated 14.07.1956. Entry No.1641 dated 03.08.1971 came to be mutated in the revenue record. Dhunjisha Rustamji, who was holding the land in question since the year 1960, had expired on 22.09.1993. Therefore, the name of his son, Malcom Dhunjisha Munsaf - the petitioner herein, was entered in the revenue record vide Entry No.2932 dated 20.10.2010 by way of succession.

2.4 It is stated that respondent No.1 preferred Special Civil Application No.5561 of 2014 before this Court seeking correction in the measurement of the land in question and also prayed that the Collector be directed to decide the representation made by present respondent Nos.1 and 2. This Court directed the Collector to decide the representation of respondent Nos.1 and 2 within stipulated time limit. The Collector, Bharuch, passed an order dated 04.08.2014 whereby the Collector had declared that the disputed Entry No.1641 dated 03.08.1971 had been duly