JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. State as well as petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 21678 of 2016 have preferred these intra-court appeals by questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 17.09.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 21678 of 2016 with Special Civil Application No. 21717 of 2016.

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

2. In respect of property bearing Survey No. 71/2 admeasuring Hectare 1.24.44 sq. mtrs. mutation entry Nos. 35, 38, 569, 604, 1243 and 1337 were made in the name of Jitendrasinh Jagmalsinh Sodha originally. The dispute in the Special Civil Applications is with regard to Entry Nos. 44, 401, 520 and 707 mutated in the revenue records of village Reladi Moti, Taluka Bhuj, District Kutch, in respect of Survey No. 64 admeasuring 4-Hectare 63-Aare and 67 sq. mtrs. Mutation entry No. 401 was made in revenue records on 02.04.1990 which came to be certified on 16.06.1990 based on the Sale Deed executed by Devraj Vira Govind in favour of Rabari Kana Gagoo on 22.03.1990. On the death of Rabari Kana Gagoo, names of his legal heirs were entered into and the revenue records was accordingly mutated on 25.01.1993 and certified on 26.05.1993.

3. Petitioners had purchased the said land under registered Sale Deed dated 08.11.1994. Likewise under registered Sale Deed dated 20.08.1996, Manoharsinh Mahobatsinh Sodha and his mother purchased portion of Survey No. 64 under registered Sale Deed dated 01.08.1996 resulting in revenue records being mutated by mutation entry No. 707 and certified on 06.11.1996.

4. The Collector, Kutch, initiated suo motu proceedings under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 and a show cause notice dated 14.08.2012 came to be issued to the petitioners stating thereunder that the revenue entries made in respect of Survey No. 71/2 namely mutation entry Nos. 35, 38, 569, 604, 1243 and 1337 there is overwriting and has been tampered with. It was also stated that mutation entry No. 38 name of Ayar Jesang Seja through mutation entry Nos. 569 assigned in the name of his brother namely Ganga Seja is done illegally. It was also stated that old Survey No. 46 i.e. new Survey Nos. 71/1 and 71/2 were in the name of Government and as such it was held that revenue entries are illegally made and approved and called upon the writ applicants to show cause why it should not be set aside. The writ applicants were also restrained by an order of injunction dated 14.08.2012 by 1st respondent whereby the writ applicants were restrained from alienating the land in any manner whatsoever. Said show cause notice was duly replied to by the petitioners. The District Collector by order dated 21.02.2013 cancelled the aforesaid entries and held that the land stood vested with the State Government without any encumbrance.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Revision Application No. 5 of 2014 was filed before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department. The revisional authority has dismissed the revision petition by holding that there are corrections in 7/12 entries and revenue records were mutated without any order or supporting evidence. In other words, order of the District Collector came to be affirmed vide order dated 01.03.2016. Being aggrieved by the said order, Special Civil Application No. 21717 of 2016 came to be filed by the writ applicants Shri Jitendrasinh Jagmalsinh Sodha and Shri Bhupendrasinh Mahobatsinh Sodha.

6. One Mr. Manoharsinh Mahobatsinh Sodha also being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department and the order of the District Collector dated 20/22.02.2013 had also filed Special Civil Application No. 21678 of 2016 which petitions have been allowed by a common order dated 17.09.2019. Hence, these two intra-court appeals.

7. State being aggrieved by the order allowing the Special Civil Applications has preferred the Letters Patent Appeal No. 546 of 2021. Whereas the legal heirs of Nagdebai Sonabhai Chavda have preferr