Heard learned advocate Mr. R.C. Kakkad for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Divyangna Jhala for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for private respondent No.4.

2. The challenge in this petition is directed against order dated 27th June, 2012 passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Secretary (Appeals), dismissing Revision Application No.20 of 2006 preferred by the petitioner, in turn, confirming order dated 29th April, 2006 of the Collector, Jamnagar.

3. The facts are that revenue Mutation Entry No.176 mutating the name of the present petitioner came to be recorded in the revenue records on 25th July, 1987, which was in respect of land bearing Survey No.103 at Village Mota Ambla, Taluka Khambhaliya. The petitioner who stayed since time of forefathers at the said village Mota Ambla, purchased the said land from private respondent No.4 – Khimiben pursuant to registered sale deed dated 03rd October, 1986. Accordingly aforesaid Entry was mutated.

3.1 Tracing further the background facts, it comes out that the land in question in respect of which the aforesaid Entry No.176 was made, originally belonged to one Hirji Narshi Shah in whose favour there stood Mutation Entry No.58. Upon the death of said Hirji Narshi, Mutation Entry No.124 was made on the basis of heir ship wherein the names of said Gulabchand Hirji – the father and said Khimiben Hirji – the daughter, respondent No.4 herein as joint heirs, came to be mutated. The said two persons sold the land by registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1986 through their administrator-cum-power of attorney holder.

3.2. It appears that respondent No.4 Khimiben raised objection before the Deputy Collector against the said Entry, upon which the Deputy Collector by order dated 29th October, 1986 cancelled the Entry. The said order was challenged before the Collector by filing Revision Application, but the same was dismissed on 15th July, 1998. Thereafter came to be filed Revision Application and the case was remanded to the Collector. The Collector again rejected the application where after the revisional jurisdiction was again invoked by the petitioner against the order of the Collector dated 29th April, 2006, which culminated into the impugned order of the revisional authority who refused to entertain the Revision Application.

3.3 The objection of private respondent No.4 in respect of the Entry in question was on the count that the sale deed was not authorisedly executed and it being not a valid sale transaction, could not have resulted into the Mutation Entry in the name of the petitioner. It appears that the sale document was executed by one Hansraj Premchand who was administrator and person in possession acted in capacity of power of attorney of Gulabchand Hirji and Khimiben Hirji. The objection of the Khimiben was that said Hansraj did not have right to execute the sale deed and he did not derive any such power from the power of attorney.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground of delayed conduct of respondent No.4 in objecting the Entry as well as by contending that the revenue authorities acted to mutate the Entry because the petitioner had become owner of the land pursuant to the sale deed executed and registered in his favour. It was further submitted that both the petitioner and private respondent had instituted their respective civil suits before the competent civil court which were pending. It was submitted that when the civil suits were pending, the revenue authorities were not justified in reaching to a conclusion about the legality of the sale transaction.

4.1. On the other hand, learned advocate for the private respondent vehemently contended that the sale was illegally executed, that the power of attorney was made subsequent to the date of sale deed and that the third party administrator had no right to act on behalf of the owners Gulabchand Hirji and Khi