ORDER :

Heard learned advocate Mr. Jigar Raval for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Viral Shah for respondent no.6, learned advocate Mr. M.B. Gohil for respondents no.7 and 8 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondent-State through video conference.

1. By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order i.e. order Annexure C passed by the The Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad on 6/4/2016 in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/SAT/178/2013.

(C) Pending hearing and till final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order i.e. order Annexure-C passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad on 6/4/2016 in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/SAT/178/2013.

(D) Any other relief deemed just and proper may pleased be granted in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the dispute in this petition is in respect of the land bearing survey/Block No.132 admeasuring 19740 sq.mtrs. of village Oviyan, Taluka Kamraj, District Surat. The petitioner purchased the said land from the owner Muljibhai Govindbhai Parmar by a registered sale deed dated 25.02.2004. A revenue entry no.1468 was mutated in the village Form No.6 on or about 31.03.2004 regarding the same.

2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that for the certification of the said entry, the petitioner produced a certificate regarding his status as an agriculturist before the authority, but at the relevant point of time, authority insisted for affidavit of the seller for certification of the entry. Because of the non-production of the affidavit of the seller, the authority did not certify the entry no.1468 regarding the sale deed of the petitioner.

2.3. The petitioner therefore, filed RTS Appeal NO.144/2008 (Old No.25/2007) before the Deputy Collector, Olpad. The Deputy Collector, Olpad by order dated 21.08.2009 rejected the said appeal.

2.4. Against the said order of the Deputy Collector, the petitioner preferred RTS Appeal No.8/2010 before the Collector, Surat. The Collector, Surat vide order dated 01.04.2011 rejected the said appeal.

2.5. Against the above orders, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/SAT/153/2011 before the Secretary Revenue (Appeals). The Secretary, after hearing both the parties, partly allowed the revision by order dated 30.08.2013 and quashed and set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar, Kamrej.

2.6. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the above entry proceedings, regarding the sale deed of the petitioner, the private respondent on the basis of absolutely forged and concocted Will dated 08.09.2009 of original owner, i.e. Muljibhai Govindbhai Parmar, applied before the Revenue authority to mutate his name. The Revenue authority posted the entry no.1648 on or about 04.02.2010 regarding the same. The said entry was certified by the Mamlatdar by order dated 01.07.2010.

2.7. Against the aforesaid order of the Mamlatdar, the petitioner preferred RTS Appeal No.93/2010 before the Deputy Collector, Bardoli. The Deputy Collector by order dated 22.03.2011 rejected the same.

2.8. It is the case of the petitioner that against the said orders, the petitioner preferred RTS Appeal No.185/2011 before the Collector, Surat. The Collector by order dated 29.08.2013 rejected the same and further directed the Mamlatdar Kamrej to initiate proceeding Under Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short “the Act, 1948”).

2.9. Against the order of the Collector dated 29.8.2013, the petitio