ORDER :

1. In this intra-court appeal, order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application 18273 of 2017 is under challenge. We have heard Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri S.H. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent. Perused the records.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal bereft of minute particulars are as under:

2.1. The land bearing Revenue Survey No. 809 paiki admeasuring 4356 sq. mtrs. situated at Village Vejalpur, Taluka-Ahmedabad City, District-Ahmedabad is the subject matter of this dispute. The pleading of the petitioner reflects, an entry bearing no. 314 came to be made in the revenue records on 08.02.1956 by the revenue authorities, entering the name of Shri Bhalaji Sadaji as occupier of Revenue Survey Nos. 805, 809, 831 on the premise of he being the occupier of land by paying land revenue since long. The said entry was certified on 08.06.1956 by Entry No. 314 by the revenue authority. This revenue entry continued in the revenue records till 1997. The said revenue entry came to be further mutated by Entry No. 7590 on 23.10.1997 by entering the name of Shri Somaji Maganji on the premise that there was a family partition of Shri Bhalalji Sadaji and Shri Somaji Maganji had received an extent of 4356 sq. mtrs. of land in Survey No. 809 in the family partition. The said entry was certified by the revenue authority on 25.11.1997. Subsequently, on 10.12.1997 Entry No. 7609 came to be mutated in the revenue records by entering the names of Sriyuths Kantiji Bhalaji Thakor, Kalaji Bhalji Thakor and Hansaben W/o Jashaji Bhalaji Thakor. Said entry came to be certified by the revenue authorities on 15.01.1998. Undisputedly, Shri Bhalaji Sadaji Thakor expired on 26.02.1998. Hence, the name of Bhalaji Sadaji Thakor was removed by mutation Entry No. 7693 on 06.04.1998 and accordingly, the revenue records came to be mutated. Undisputedly, after the revenue entry was mutated during October, 1997, which was certified in November, 1997, there was no challenge to the said entry. This Entry of 7950 dated 23.10.1997 came to be challenged by the appellants herein before the Deputy Collector who rejected the same on the ground of inordinate delay, vide order dated 24.07.2014 passed in Appeal Case No. 250 of 2013. Said order came to be confirmed by the Collector in Revision Application No. 458 of 2014 by order dated 05.09.2015. Being aggrieved by the said order, revision was preferred before the Secretary (Appeal) Revenue Department, (SSRD) in Revision Application No. 203 of 2015, which came to be allowed by order dated 16.08.2017 and being aggrieved by the same, writ applicants filed Special Civil Application 18273 of 2017 and learned Single Judge by impugned order allowed the Special Civil Application and set aside the order of SSRD and restored the order of the Deputy Collector as affirmed by the Collector. Hence, this appeal.

2.2. It also requires to be noticed that appellants herein have filed Regular Civil Suit no. 609 of 2014 on the file of civil court, Ahmedabad (Rural) for declaration that purported agreement of sale under which respondents are claiming right over subject property is illegal, void-ab-inito and not binding on them and also for consequential relief of perpetual injunction. In the said suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction was sought for by filing an application as per Exhibit-5, which came to be rejected by the learned trial Judge by order dated 09.02.2016.

2.3. The grievance of the writ applicants before the learned Single Judge was to the effect that mutation Entry No. 7590 dated 23.10.1997 came to be entered after recording the statements and drawing the panchnama and as such, the SSRD had committed a serious error in entertaining challenge to the said mutation entry after a delay of 16 years. It was also contended that respondents had a knowledge about the mutation Entry 7590 da