JUDGMENT :

With consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is being taken up for final hearing. Rule. Learned advocate Ms.Jani waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Bharat Vyas waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent – State authorities.

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

“A) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned dated: 8/12/2017 passed by the Secretary Revenue department in revision no.HKP/Bhavnagar/5/2005, passed by the respondent no.1 qua rejection of joining party and further be pleased to direct the collector to considered the case of the petitioners also under section 54 A of Shaurashara Gharkhed Ordinance;

AA) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing the order dated 15/2/2018 passed by the learned Mamlatdar, Botad in Gharkhed case no.2 of 2018.

B) That pending admission herein and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble court be pleased to stay the implementation of impugned dated: 8/12/2017 passed by the Secretary Revenue department in revision no.HKP/Bhavnagar/5/2005, passed by the respondent no.1;

BB) Pending admission and final hearing of petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleases to stay the implementation and execution of order dated order dated 15/2/2018 passed by the learned Mamlatdar, Botad in Gharkhed case no.2 of 2018.

C) That ad-interim injunction in terms of para (B) may be granted.

D) That any other and further relief that is deemed fit and expedient in the interest of justice be granted.”

2. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Anshin Desai with learned advocate Mr.Jinesh Kapadia for the petitioners, learned advocate Ms.Megha Jani for learned advocate Mr.Aadit R. Sanjanwala for Respondent No.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Bharat Vyas for respondent No.1 – State Authority.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

3.1 That the land bearing survey no.36/1 paiki 8 Acres situated at Mouje Village: Haddad, Tal.Dist.Botad was originally owned by Moghiben Nanabhai and Bavaldas Nagardas. They sold the land to Manharbhai Ratilal Bagadiya by way of registered sale deed no.327 in the year 1991 and the same was certified on 27.01.1992. Said Manharbhai Bagadiya sold the land in question in favour of Respondent No.3 – Vallubhai Rukabhai Boliya by way of registered sale-deed No.1729 of 2001 dated 13.09.2001 for which a mutation entry no.2018 was recorded and the same was mutated on 17.09.2001.

3.2 The record indicates that the proceedings against Respondent No.4 were initiated suo motu by the Collector, Bhavnagar for breach of Section 54 of Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance 1949 [‘the Ordinance’, for short] as the Respondent No.4 was not an ‘agriculturist’ and, therefore, vide order dated 14.03.2001 the Collector, Bhavnagar held the transfer of land in question in favour of Respondent No.4 to be invalidated and vested the land into Government. What is noteworthy is the fact that after the Collector passed an order dated 14.03.2001 holding that the land was purchased in breach of provisions of Section 54 of the Ordinance, 1949 and, therefore, the transfer was invalidated, Respondent No.3 herein purchased the land thereafter on 13.09.2001 from Respondent No.4 Manhar Bagadiya, who was not even competent to sell the land to Respondent No.3 as the land was already ordered to be vested in the Government.

3.3 The Respondent No.3 held the land by virtue of aforesaid sale-deed dated 13.09.2001 being sale-deed No.1729 of 2001 and ultimately sold 5 Acres 09 Gunthas of land out of the total land purchased by him to present petitioners by way of sale-deed dated 4405 dated 01.07.2008. Though the sale-deed is not produced, it is stated in the petition that another portion of 1 Acre 24 G