IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of mutation entry and subsequent orders must be justified by evidence, especially when the status of the petitioner as an agriculturist is derived from her father's status and the father's successful challenge has a direct impact on the present case.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

"A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application;

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may further be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 06.03.2010, 05.11.2019, 19.03.2020 and 03.03.2023 deciding not to certify the Entry No.2638 dated 01.01.2010 made in Village Form No.VI, with respect to the land of Village Karol, Taluka Chuda, District Surendranagar, passed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 viz. ANNEXURES B, C, D & H respectively to the petition holding de hors S.135C of the Code, arbitrary, illegal, perverse and passed in complete disregard to the judgments cited at the bar in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;

C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the further execution, operation and implementation of the impugned Orders ANNEXURES B, C, D & H and may further be pleased to restrain the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's use, occupation and possession of the land survey No.238 admeasuring 2 - 25- 62 Hectares of Village, Karol, Taluka Chuda, District Surendranagar to meet with the ends of justice;"

2. Since the relief prayed for does not give the clear picture about what the petitioner has challenged, the record indicates that Annexure B is the order dated 6.3.2010 passed by the Circle Officer (Revenue) rejecting mutation Entry No.2638. Annexure C is the order dated 5.11.2019 passed by the Assistant Collector, Limbdi in RRT Appeal Case No.35 of 2019 whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 6.3.2010 was rejected. Annexure D is the order passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in RRT Revision Case No.11 of 2020 whereby the petitioner's revision application was rejected vide order dated 19.3.2020 and Annexure H is the order passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) dated 3.3.2023 in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/SNR/34/2020 rejecting the petitioner's revision application.

3. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself. Rule. Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondents.

4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition as summarized by learned advocate Mr. Kanabar are stated as under :-

4.1 The petitioner happens to be the daughter of one Sutar Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata who had purchased the agricultural land of village Rampara, Taluka Kotdasangani having Survey Nos.41/1 and 42 paiki 1 admeasuring Acres 3 - 09 Gunthas and Acres 4 - 05 Gunthas respectively. In respect of the aforesaid land held by her father, Entry No.511 was mutated in Village Form No.6 and the same was certified on 16.3.1969 for which on 7.7.2011, Deputy Collector & SDM, Rajkot initiated proceedings for violation of Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949 contending that when father of the petitioner i.e. Sutar Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata purchased the land, he was not an agriculturist.

4.2. Father of the petitioner Sutar Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata failed in his challenge to the aforesaid proceedings before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) as the learned SSRD dismissed the revision application No.MVV/Gharkhed/RJD/4/2016 vide order dated 23.6.2017. The said order was challenged by the father of the petitioner by way of Special Civil Application No.17068 of 2017 and vide order dated 22.12.2021, the coordinate Bench of this Court held that the exercise of powers after 42 years was illegal and allowed the petition and the aforesaid order was never carried in appeal and had become final qua the father of the present petitioner.

4.3. In the meantime, the present petitioner even before the proceedin