The petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the transcription of a sale deed in revenue records, as they were not parties to the original proceedings.

ORDER :

Nikhil S. Kariel, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shriram Bhargav for learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent No.1 State and learned advocate Mr. Sunil Joshi for the private respondent No.7. It is clarified at this stage that while the original respondent No.7 is represented through his legal heirs, for the sake of brevity, the party will be referred to as respondent No.7.

2. It would appear that while the petition had been preferred in the year 2022 and whereas the order-sheet reflects that the matter has been adjourned for quite a number of times, yet even notice has not been issued. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi for the private respondents is appearing on caveat and whereas reply has been filed on behalf of the caveator.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge an order passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. learned SSRD dated 12.08.2022 passed in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/MRB/38/2021, whereby the learned SSRD has confirmed the order passed by the Collector, which had set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector.

4. It would appear that the private respondents herein had approached the Deputy Collector vide an application, termed as 108(5) Appeal Case No. 54/2020, more particularly contending that the entry No.477 in the revenue record was with regard to a sale deed (conditional) between the grandfather of the present petitioner and the father of the private respondents and whereas while it had been certified, yet the same had not been transcribed in the revenue record and whereas it was requested that the said entry be transcribed in the revenue record. It would appear that vide order dated 20.03.2021, the Deputy Collector, Morbi, had rejected the application, aggrieved by which, the private respondents had challenged the same before the Collector, Morbi, by preferring RRT/Revision/MRB/11/2021 and whereas vide an order dated 11.06.2021, the Collector had allowed the Revision Application and had directed mutation of entry No.2477 in the revenue record and whereas the entry in favour of the family members of the petitioners being entry No.722 had been cancelled qua the land admeasuring 5 A. & 8 G. of Survey No.27 i.e. the land which had been sold by the grandfather of the petitioner to the father of the private respondents, which was subject matter of entry No.477. The Collector had further directed that the said change would be subject to the final outcome of Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 2020 pending before the learned Civil Court at Morbi, preferred by the private respondent No.7 herein. The said order being challenged before the learned SSRD, vide the impugned order dated 12.08.2022, learned SSRD had confirmed order passed by the Collector. Being aggrieved by which order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Bhargav for the petitioner would contend that the Deputy Collector had not committed any error whatsoever since the Deputy Collector had inter alia come to a conclusion that the issue with regard to the land admeasuring 5A. and 8G. of land of Survey No.27 at village: Ravapara, Ta. Morbi i.e. the land which was sold by the grandfather of the petitioner to the respondent No.7 herein was the subject matter of Civil Suit and therefore, affect of the entry could not be granted. Learned advocate would submit that there are various orders namely order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Morbi, in Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 2020, more particularly under Exhibit 5 directing the defendants therein not to in any manner obstruct the plaintiffs therein i.e. respondent No.7 herein and whereas the defendants therein were directed not to in any manner transact the property i