ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 and the rules framed thereunder, the petitioner has called in question the orders dated 24th June 2015, 3rd December 2008 and 10th February 2006 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Collector, Sabarkantha and Deputy Collector, Idar respectively, wherein the authorities have refused to mutate the name of the petitioner in the record of right pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 26th December 2003.

2. The brief facts of the case can be stated as under :

2.1 The agricultural lands bearing survey Nos.297 and 296 situated at village : Vadali, District : Sabarkantha, being the family property, came to be acquired by the petitioner by way of inheritance.

2.2 On 17th December 2003, the petitioner had sold the entire holding of agricultural lands situated at village : Vadali, District : Sabarkantha bearing survey Nos.296 and 297 to Dineshbhai Amichandbhai Patel and Natwarbhai Dhulabhai Patel respectively by way of registered sale deed. Pursuant to the said sale deed, entries Nos.11105 and 11106 came to be mutated on 25th May 2004.

2.3 However, due to some consideration issues, the petitioner has repurchased the aforesaid land from Dineshbhai Amichandbhai Patel and Natwarbhai Dhulabhai Patel by way of registered sale deed on 26th December 2003.

2.4 Pursuant to the said registered sale deed dated 26th December 2003, the petitioner made an application for mutation of his name in the revenue record, however, the Mamlatdar, Vadali, vide its order dated 21st May 2005, rejected the application broadly on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained farmer certificate before purchasing the land as with effect from 17th December 2003, the petitioner was no longer an agriculturist as having sold his entire holding of agricultural lands.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Idar being RTS Appeal No.RTS/Appeal/20/2005. However, the Deputy Collector, Idar, vide its order dated 10th February 2006, rejected the appeal by confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Vadali.

4. As against the aforesaid order dated 10th February 2006 passed by the Deputy Collector, the petitioner approached the District Collector, Sabarkantha by way of RTS Revision application No.RTS/Revision/Case No.13/2006. However, the District Collector, Sabarkantha, vide its order dated 3rd December 2008, rejected the revision application preferred by the petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner approached the respondent No.1 – the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department by way of revision application No.MVV/HKP/SBR/14/2009. However, the respondent No.1, vide its order dated 24th June 2015, rejected the said revision application preferred by the petitioner confirming the orders passed by the subordinate revenue authorities.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition for appropriate writ, order or directions.

7. I have heard Mr. R.K. Mansuri, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned A.G.P. for the respondent – State of Gujarat. Since the issue involved in the petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court and with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

8. Mr. Mansuri, learned advocate for the petitioner, while assailing the orders passed by the revenue authorities, has made the following submissions :

8.1 Mr. Mansuri, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the orders passed by the revenue authorities are not tenable in the eye of law being contrary to the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and the rules framed thereunder.

8.2 Mr. Mansuri submitted that the petitioner is the registered sale deed