ORDER :

1. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at admission stage. Heard learned Mr. Nishit P Gandhi for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent-State. Though served none appeared on behalf of the other private respondents.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the respondent in Revision Application no. MVV/HKP/BNS/43 of 2019 as well as the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the respondent-District Collector in Revision case no. 51 of 2017 as well as order dated 28.02.2017 in RTS Appeal No. 155 of 2016.

3. The brief facts of the present petition is that the dispute pertains to the land in question situated at Revenue Survey No. 613 at moje Juna Deesa, Taluka Deesa, District- Banaskantha, which was running in the name of Prajapati Keshabhai Karshanbhai and was shown as an old tenure land in the revenue record. That upon the death of Prajapati Keshabhai Karshanbhai on 20.06.2009, the revenue entry no. 9999 dated 06.09.2012 was mutated in the revenue record of the land in question and the same was certified on 22.11.2012. The said land in question was purchased by the petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 06.08.2013, from the heirs of the deceased Keshabhai. Thereafter, the entry no. 10297 was mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the aforesaid sale transaction and the same was also certified on 12.09.2013.

3.1 Though the name of the petitioner was mutated, one Prajapati Jayantibhai Kesahabhai has preferred RTS Appeal No. 95 of 2013 questioning the entry no. 9999, only claiming himself to be the left out legal heir of deceased Keshabhai Prajapati. It is alleged that in collusion with other respondents therein, who did not appeared before the Deputy Collector, vide order dated 30.12.2014 the Deputy Collector allowed the appeal and cancelled the entry no. 9999. The said order of the Deputy Collector was challenged by the present petitioner by preferring Revision Application No. 78 of 2015 before the District Collector, which was came to be allowed vide order dated 01.08.2016 by setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector. It is contended that the District Collector has further observed that the petitioner herein is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question.

3.2 It is contended that Jayantibhai had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 94 of 2016 challenging the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The said plaint came to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code vide order dated 15.12.2016. Despite the aforesaid facts, respondent Jayantibhai had preferred RTS Appeal No. 155 of 2016, challenging the entry no. 10297 mutated in the revenue record with regard to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. That without appreciating the proper facts of the case, and without passing any separate order for condonation of gross delay of more than three years, the learned Deputy Collector allowed the appeal and cancelled the entry no. 10297 vide order dated 28.02.2017 on the ground that land in question was a new tenure land and the sale deed in favour of the petitioner is executed without prior permission of competent authority. Against that order, the petitioner has preferred Revision Case no. 51 of 2017 before the District Collector which was also rejected vide impugned order dated 28.03.2019. Again against the order of the District Collector, the petitioner has preferred Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/BNS/43 of 2019 before the SSRD. That without proper appreciation of the facts, the SSRD has also rejected the application vide order dated 07.06.2019.

3.3 The main contention of the petitioner is that he is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question showing old tenure land in the village form no. 7/12. Therefore, the impugned orders are absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.

3.4 Therefore,