ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa for the petitioners,learned advocate Mr. R.D. Kinariwala for respondent nos.3 and 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Trupesh Kathiriya for respondent nos. 1 and 2 through video conference.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Trupesh Kathiriya waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. R.D. Kinariwala waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4.

3. The controversy arising in this petition is in a very narrow compass and therefore, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, same is taken up for hearing today.

4. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 27th April, 2015 passed by the Mamlatdar, Surat city, Katargam, Surat cancelling Entry No. 10877 without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners only on the ground that this Court has not given any direction to make an entry of lis pendence in the revenue record while passing the order in Civil Application No.5564 of 2013 in First Appeal No.1274/2013.

5. Brief facts leading to the present petition are as under :

5.1) The petitioners entered into an agreement to sale dated 27th April, 1988 with one Dalpatbhai Durlabhai Patel for purchasing an old tenure land admeasuring 5058 sq. mtrs. of land bearing Survey no.494, F.P. No. 34., T.P Scheme No. 18 (Katargarm), Surat. However, pursuant thereto, final sale deed could not be executed due to pendency of ULC proceedings.

5.2) It is the case of the petitioners that after the original seller died, his legal heirs failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners and the said land was sold and transferred to third party. The petitioners therefore, filed Special Civil Suit No.244/2012 before the Principal Civil Judge, Surat for specific performance of the agreement to sale and also sought cancellation of sale deed executed by the seller in favour of the purchasers who were parties in the suit.

5.3) Respondent no.3 and 4 herein filed application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the said suit for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was time barred. The 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat by order dated 29th April, 2013 allowed the said application and ordered rejection of the plaint. However, the operation of the judgment and decree was stayed upto 10th June, 2013 to enable the petitioners to file appeal.

5.4) The petitioners thereafter filed First Appeal No. 1274/2013 challenging the said judgment and decree before this Court, wherein Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3rd July, 2013 admitted the appeal and in Civil Application No. 5654/2013 granted ad-interim stay to maintain status-quo qua possession and title of the property to be maintained by both the sides. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 29th August, 2013 continued the operation of ad-interim order until 16th September, 2013 with observation that the petitioners would be at liberty to get the lis pendence registered with the concerned Registrar showing the pendency of the proceedings of First Appeal.

5.5) Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners have registered the lis pendence about the suit land before the Sub-Registrar, Surat-8 (Rander) on 13/09/2013and the same is registered as SRT/8/RDR No. 956/2013. Such registration of lis pendence was duly entered in the revenue record vide Entry No. 10877 by the revenue authority with regard to the suit land.

5.6) It is the case of the petitioners that respondent nos. 3 and 4 submitted the written objections before the Mamlatdar, Surat City, Katargam, Surat and without giving any notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the Mamlatdar vide order dated 27th April, 2015 cancelled the Entry No. 10877 observing that this Court has not given any