RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 for the prayers as prayed for inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Secretary(Appeals), Revenue Department, dated 31.01.2000 at Annexure-N confirming the order passed by the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar at Annexure-L. It has also been prayed that the order passed by the Prant Officer dated 30.04.1997 may be declared to be illegal and quashing and setting aside the proceedings under the case No. PO/T.D./APPEAL/SR. 09/2014 filed before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar, at Annexure-T on the ground stated in the memo of petition.

2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows:

2.1. The land in question bearing survey no. 119(old) now 118 was owned by one Bhikhabhai Fakirbhai Patel. After demise of Shri Fakirbhai, the names of the heirs of Bhikhabhai Fakirbhai Patel was mutated by entry no. 275. Thereafter, the application was made by Bhikhabhai Fakirbhai for formation of the Co-operative society and in 1997 order for consolidation of the land of village:Kudasan was made when Bhikhabhai Fakirbhai Patel passed away in 1979. Thereafter, the heirs of Bhikhabhai Fakirbhai i.e. Surajaben Wd/o Bhikhabhai Fakirbhai and Dhuliben Bhikhabhai were mutated and it was certified by entry no. 1525 on 30.10.1979. However, the land was sold by the heirs of Bhikhabhai Fakirbhai to one Shri Harijanbhai Dahyabhai by a registered sale deed dated 26.03.1980. The application was given by widow on the same day that it is cultivated by her and the entry no. 1396 was mutated. Thereafter, in 1986, the proceedings were initiated by said Dhuliben after six years of the sale, filed Fragmentation Case No. 446 of 1986, which came to be decided on 30.04.1997 by respondent No. 3. However, in between, the two sale transactions took place and one Dahyabhai Madhabhai Patel, who purchased the land sold to one Shankarbhai Babubhai Patel. Therefore, in light of the circular that the land of Village:Kudasan may be deleted from the fragmentation and the mutation entry no. 2089 was made. Thereafter, after 11 years, the order came to be passed in Fragmentation Case No. 446 of 1986 at Annexure-L. The petitioner, who had purchased the land by registered sale deed, an entry no. 4902 was made and therefore, when the petitioner made an application for NA permission, said Dhuliben raised the objection leading to the impugned order passed by the authority.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Anshin Desai appearing with learned advocate Shri Rohan A. Shah for the petitioner, learned AGP Shri Manan Mehta for respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Shri Nilesh A. Pandya appearing with learned advocate Shri Amrish K. Pandya for respondent No. 5.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Anshin Desai referred to the long history and number of transactions and submitted that the Civil Suit No. 89 of 2013, it has been instituted belatedly in April, 2013 challenging the sale deed is nullified the transaction. He referred to the papers and submitted that the Prant Officer by order dated 30.04.1997 sought to raise an issue as to why the entry was made and the order of 30.04.1997 was not challenged till 2008. However, after long lapse of about 10 years, such issues are raised in the revenue proceedings to nullify the order of the civil court. He submitted that the Suit No. 89 of 2013 filed by Dhuliben has been rejected under Order 7, Rule 11. He, therefore, submitted that by way of such proceedings before the Revenue Authority, the harassment has been caused and the impugned order, which has been passed, is misconceived and without examining the relevant material and background of the facts. He, therefore, submitted that the present petition may be allowed.

5. Learned advocate Shri Nilesh Pandya appearing with learned advocate Shri