JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the learned Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.HKP/Kachchh/39/2010 as well as the order dated 10.2.2010 passed by the Collector, Kachchh in Land Revenue Rules 108 (6) Case No.122/2010.

2. Considering the fact that the petition is of the year 2017 and the same is pending for admission hearing since last more than seven years, with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up finally. Hence, Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of rule.

3. While issuing notice, the coordinate Bench of this Court had granted ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 13 (b) and 13 (c) in favour of the petitioner and the said relief is in operation till today, according to the parties.

4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under :-

4.1 It is the case of the petitioner as submitted by learned advocate Mr. B. Y. Mankad that one Vala Nathu, father-in-law of the petitioner was a tenant of Jivram Mandan who happens to be father of respondent No.3. Rasiklal Jivram was holding the agricultural land named "Kharu" bearing old Survey No.626/4 having corresponding new Survey No.778 in the village Varsamedi in Anjar Taluka of Kachchh District. The said Vala Nathu was cultivating the land before the year 1940 and was paying rent to owner i.e. Jivram Mandan.

4.2 In the year 1961, upon creation of State of Gujarat, the Government prepared a statement of agricultural land and in that statement of land, name of Jivram Mandan was shown as an owner of the land and name of Vala Nathu was shown as a tenant of the said land. In the statement of land, in Hakka Patrak, name of Jivram Mandan was mutated vide Entry No.96 with regard to the land bearing old Revenue Survey No.626/4 and the same was promulgated on 24.7.1962 and Jivram Mandan was accepted as an owner of the land. As Nathu Vala, father-in-law of the petitioner was in possession of the land, his name was shown in the column as an agriculturist in the 7/12 extracts from the year 1964-65 to 1975- 76. At the time of promulgation, according to the petitioner, the area of the land was shown as 11 Acres 08 Gunthas which was incorrect according to the petitioner and the same was occurred due to a mistake. In the new record of rights, the said land was shown in the name of Government vide Entry No.462 which was promulgated on 30.3.1976. Though Vala Nathu was in possession of the land during the aforesaid period, in Entry No.462, in the last column in the remarks, it was stated that "regularize the case of encroachment". Because of the aforesaid endorsement in Entry No.462, name of Vala Nathu was deleted from the column of the agriculturist in the revenue extracts i.e. Village Form No.12 though he remained in possession of the land in question.

4.3 The aforesaid mistake continued till the year 2000 and Vala Nathu remained in possession of the land in question till the year 2000. In response to an application dated 1.2.2000 preferred by the petitioner, Talati of Varsamedi village mutated the name of the petitioner in Village Form No.12 vide Entry No.1610 dated 10.2.2000 and the said entry was certified on 31.3.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner's name was mutated in Village Form No.7/12 from the year 1999 - 2000. The aforesaid Entry No.1610 was taken in suo-motu revision after a period of 10 years and issued show-cause notice dated 11.1.2010 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 only and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the proceedings before the Collector, Kachchh took place and by order dated 10.2.2010, the Collector ordered cancellation of Entry No.1610. The petitioner was unaware about the aforesaid proceedings as no notice was issued to the petitioner in the said proceedings and, therefore, upon becoming aware about the same, the petitioner challenged the said order by preferring Revision Application No.30 of 2010 before