ORDER :

1. Order dated 26.10.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 18492 of 2014 is challenged in this intra court appeal.

2. We have heard arguments of Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Ms. Shah, learned Government advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Jigar Raval, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. Perused the record.

3. Being conscious of the fact that in intra court appeals, interference being limited, we have examined the facts on hand. Appellants under three sale deeds executed on 24.5.2007 by Mayank Patel through his power of attorney holder Navinbhai purchased half share including right, title and interest of undivided half share in Survey Nos. 463/1, 464/2, 461/1, 471/2 and 468 of village Sherkhi, Taluka District Vadodara (hereinafter referred as the “subject property”). On purchase of said property, they sought for revenue entries being mutated in their names. Accordingly, revenue entries came to be mutated on 31.5.2007 being entry Nos. 8729 and 8730. However, on account of objections having been lodged, it was treated as disputed case by the jurisdictional Mamlatdar. On 4.4.2008, he cancelled entries. This was challenged by the appellants before the Deputy Collector in an appeal which came to be allowed on 31.1.2010 and remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar. On such remand being made, the Mamlatdar upheld the entries on 9.6.2010. This order was upheld by the Deputy Collector on 31.1.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, revision application was filed by the third respondent before the Collector which was allowed on 16.5.2014. Challenging the correctness of the said order, revision application was filed before the SSRD by the appellants herein which came to be dismissed on 21.10.2014. Being aggrieved by the said order, they approached the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 18492 of 2014 which has been dismissed by order dated 26.10.2018 and the order of the SSRD came to be upheld. Hence, this appeal.

4. It is the contention of Mr. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that revenue entries having been certified by the Mamlatdar and upheld by the Deputy Collector, there was no reason for the said orders being interfered with by the Collector, more particularly, when the appellants had claimed the right of mutation on the strength of registered sale deeds dated 24.5.2007. He would also submit that revenue authorities are bound by the registered sale deeds and they cannot shy away from mutating the revenue record when there are registered sale deeds. Hence, he would contend that orders passed by the Collector, SSRD and learned Single Judge are contrary to the established law which requires to be set aside by this Court. He would also hasten to add that insofar as right of possession which was claimed by the third respondent by filing an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC in the suits filed i.e. Special Civil Suit Nos. 302 and 303 of 2007 came to be allowed by learned trial Judge which landed before this Court in Appeal from Order No. 377 of 2011 wherein it was agreed that interim relief granted by learned Single Judge in the said appeal on 19.10.2011 i.e. suspending operation and implementation of the order passed by the learned trial Court to be continued. Hence, it would not lie in the mouth of the third respondent to contend anything contrary to same. Hence, he prays that appeal being allowed.

5. Per contra, Ms. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader would support the impugned order and contend that learned Single Judge having opined that entries made in the revenue record would be subject to the result of the civil suit ought to have set aside the order of SSRD and restored the order of Mamlatdar.

6. Mr. Jigar Raval, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would not only support the impugned