Point of Law: interim protection granted in favour of the parties is to continue, but the same shall not govern the decision of the Court. The basis for adjudication shall need to be the oral as well as documentary evidence as may be adduced by the parties on the strength of the averments set out

ORDER :

1. This is a petition preferred under Articles 14 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs:

“20..

(A) This Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment at Annexure ‘H’ hereto as also the order dated 11.05.2007 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur below application Exh.5 at Annexure ‘E’ hereto; and consequently granting relief prayed for in application Exh.5;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to issue an injunction restraining the respondents herein from creating any obstruction in possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit land by the petitioner and also restraining the respondents herein from in any manner transferring the suit land in favour of a third party either by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise or from in any manner dealing with the suit land;

(C) Such other and further relief or relief’s as may be deemed just and expedient in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted;

(D) Costs of this petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. For the consideration of the Court, the questions raised by the petitioner are as follow:

“(1) Whether the Courts below committed an error in not appreciating the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and this Honourable Court in series of decisions to the effect that the mutation entries are effected in the revenue record only for fiscal purpose and such mutation entries do not confer title to the land on the person whose in named in the revenue record ?

(2) Whether the Courts below committed an error in not appreciating the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and this Honourable Court in series of decisions to the effect that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide whether a particular piece of land is a fragment within the meaning of the said term occurring in the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Fragmentation Act”) ?

(3) Whether the Courts below committed an error in not appreciating that unless a sale deed which is registered under the Registration Act is set aside or cancelled by a competent Civil Court, the purchaser of the property continues to be the lawful owner of the said property ?

(4) Whether the Courts below committed an error in not appreciating the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and this Honourable Court in series of decisions to the effect that the question as to the title to the property can be decided only by a competent Civil Court and that the Revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide such question ?

(5) Whether the Courts below committed an error in replying upon the revenue record while deciding the question as to ownership of the suit land ?

(6) Whether the Courts below committed an error in holding that the petitioner herein is not in actual physical possession of the suit land and that she is not a bonafide purchaser of the suit land ?

(7) Whether the Court below committed an error in holding that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is null and void as it is got executed by perpetrating fraud, without there being any documentary or oral evidence on the record of the case to arrive at the said conclusion ?

(8) Whether the Courts below committed an error in not appreciating that four civil suits filed by different parties claiming ownership right over the suit land are pending before the Civil Courts for final disposal; and that unless those suits are decided, the petitioner could not have been deprived of her possession of the suit land at an interim stage ?

(9) Whether the Courts below committed an error in not appreciating that unless the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is cancelled by t