JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 03.04.2019 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (for short “the SSRD”), order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the Deputy Collector, Daskroi Prant, Ahemdabad in Remand Case No.3 of 2017. A further prayer is made to cancel the Entry No.5279 dated 28.03.2012 mutated in the revenue record.

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

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Block Nos.996 and 1001 situated at Mouje Kubadthal village, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad are the land in question and the same are disputed and is the ancestral property of the petitioners.

3.2 The petitioners and the respondent No.4 have executed a Registered Sale deed of Rs.14,000/- for the land in question vide Registration No.2206 on 22.07.1998 for the total sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/-. The petitioners have alleged that against the aforesaid amount, only Rs.14,000/- was paid by the respondent No.4 and he promised to give an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- but failed to pay the same till date.

3.3 It appears that the respondent No.4 filed an application for entering his name in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed and the name of the respondent No.4 was mutated in the revenue record on 06.07.1998 and a tentative Entry No.3652 was mutated on 13.08.1998 in favour of the respondent No.4 on the basis of the sale deed.

3.4 It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner Nos.7 and 8 filed application bearing RTS Case No.54 of 2006 raising objection against Entry No.3652 before the Mamlatdar, Daskaroi, however the same came to be rejected by order dated 30.10.2006, despite settlement between the parties. It appears that the respondent No.4 filed an application again for entering name in the revenue records on the basis of the said registered sale deed and accordingly, on 13.08.2010, entry No.4924 was mutated giving effect thereof, however the same was not certified on the ground that the Power of Attorney of the petitioner Nos.7 and 8 was not produced and there was an entry with regard to the breach of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short, “Fragmentation Act”). It appears that thereafter, the respondent No.4 produced the Power of Attorney and other documents and Entry No.4984 was mutated on the basis of the sale deed but the same was not certified as there was an entry of fragment.

3.5 The petitioners thereafter instituted Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 2013 challenging the sale deed dated 22.07.1998, which was dismissed for default in the year 2018, however subsequently the said suit is restored.

3.6 It is pertinent to note that Entry No.5279 was certified on 28.03.2012 recording the name of respondent No.4 and the petitioners challenged the certification of Entry No.5279 before the respondent No.3-Deputy Collector, who cancelled Entry No.5279 in RTS/Appeal No.98 of 2014.

3.7 Being aggrieved, respondent No.4 challenged the order of the respondent No.3 before the respondent No.2-District Collector, Ahmedabad by filing LB/Revision Application No.340 of 2016, who allowed the said revision application vide order dated 30.10.2017 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the respondent No.3 and a further direction was issued to the respondent No.3 to verify whether there was any breach of the Fragmentation Act or not. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Collector, the respondent No.3 initiated proceedings being Remand Case No.3 of 2017 under Section 9 of the Fragmentation Act. By the order dated 12.06.2018, the respondent No.3 has held that there was no breach of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act and hence, the said notice under Section 9 of the Fragmentation Act was withdrawn and thereby confirmed Entry N