Point of Law: Once a registered sale deed is executed, revenue entry is required to be mutated on the basis of such sale deed.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Himanish Japee and Ms. Jyoti Jani, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition was taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the respondent No.3 - Collector, Banaskantha at Himmatnagar in R.T.S./Revision/ Case No.38 of 2009 and order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 - Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes) in Revision Application No.MVV/HAKAP/SABAR/67/ 2011. By way of the impugned orders, the mutation entry No.1137, which was mutated in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 18.02.2008 came to be cancelled and the said order was confirmed by the revisional authority.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under.

3.1 The land situated at Village Tajpur, Taluka Talod, District Sabarkantha bearing Block No.293 admeasuring 2-85-12 Hec-Are-Sq.Mtrs was originally belong to Gajaraba Kodarsinh Zala (deceased) and Jagatsinh Kodarsinh Zala. The present petitioner purchased the said land from the aforesaid two persons by way of a registered sale deed dated 18.02.2008. At the time of the purchase of the said land by the petitioner, as per the revenue record, the names of the aforesaid two persons only were there in the revenue record.

3.2 On the basis of the aforesaid registered sale deed, an entry No.1137 was mutated in the revenue record on 25.02.2008 in favour of the petitioner. The entire land in question was converted into old tenure land by Mamlatdar, Talod, District Sabarkantha vide order dated 20.03.2007 and for that entry No.1039 was also mutated.

3.3 Jagatsinh Kodarsinh Zala challenged the aforesaid entry No.1137 mutated in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 18.02.2008 in favour of the petitioner before the Deputy Collector, Sabarkantha, but the same was rejected by the Deputy Collector, Sabarkantha vide order dated 21.02.2009.

3.4 The aforesaid order dated 21.02.2009 was challenged by other persons before the Collector, Himmatnagar by filing R.T.S./Revision/Case No.38/2009. In the said proceedings, Jagatsinh Kodarsinh Zala, who was the applicant before the Deputy Collector was joined as respondent. In the said revision application filed under Rule 108(6) of the Land Revenue Rules, entry No.1137 was challenged on the ground that the applicants of the said revision application though were co-owners and having joint possession of the land, without their consent, the land was sold in favour of the petitioner, and therefore, Entry No.1137 was sought to be cancelled. Ultimately, the Collector, Sabarkantha vide order dated 15.10.2011 allowed application preferred by the applicants and quashed the order dated 21.02.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar and cancelled Entry No.1137 by holding that the private respondents have some share in the property and disputed entry was certified in 29 days.

3.5 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2011 passed b the Collector, Sabarkantha, present petitioner filed Revision Application No.MVV/HAKAP/SABAR/ 67/2011 before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes) the and Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes) passed order dated 30.04.2012 directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the revenue records. In the said proceedings it was contended by the petitioner that in respect of the aforesaid sale deed a civil suit was already pending. It was also contended that by way of the registered sale deed only part of the land, as per the share of the sellers in the land of common ownership, was purchased by the petitioner and what was required to be seen by the revenue authorities was whether the revenue entry mutated in favour of the pe