ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 28.1.2016 passed by respondent-

District Collector in Land Revision Case No.4/2008-2009 as well as order dated 24.7.2017 in Revision Application No.MVV/HAKAP/MRB/19/2016 passed by respondent-SSRD (at Annexure-E) as well as order dated 13.02.2009, passed by the Deputy Collector; Morbi in Appeal No.38 of 2007 (at Annexure- C) and order dated 16.10.2007 rejecting entry no.4056 by learned Mamlatdar (at Annexure-B).

2. The brief facts of the case are that dispute pertains to the land situated at Revenue Survey No.9 Paiki 1, admeasuring 5 Acres and 8 Gunthas of Village-Ravapara, Taluka and District- Morbi, which was originally in the joint names of Sadhu Vallabhdas balakdas and Rajaram Balakdas in the year 1953. It is stated that the petitioners have purchased said land from the legal heirs of Vallabhdas Balakdas by way of registered Sale Deed dated 12.7.2007. On the basis of said Sale Deed an entry No.4056 was mutated in the names of the petitioners in Village Form No.6 on 10.8.2007. Thereafter, on 16.10.2007, Mamlatdar has rejected entry No.4056 on the ground that the land belongs to “Thakar Na Mandir Na Diveliya” and, therefore, it cannot be sold or transferred. According to the petitioners, no opportunity of being heard was provided to them. Against that order, the petitioners have preferred Appeal No.38 of 2017 before the Collector, which is also dismissed without considering the submissions of the petitioners herein. The petitioners pointed out that the rejected, which is contrary to Section 15 of the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act. According to the petitioners, in 2016, revision was preferred before the District Collector which also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by said order, the petitioners have preferred Revision Application before SSRD, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.7.2017. It is stated that revision application is rejected without assigning cogent reasons.

3. Being aggrieved by all these orders, the petitioners have preferred present petition.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Majmudar for the petitioners and learned AGP, Mr.Kanara for the respondent-State.

5. Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the dispute pertains to the land situated at Revenue Survey No.9 Paiki 1, admeasuring 5 Acres and 8 Gunthas of Village-Ravapara, Taluka and District-Morbi, which was originally in the joint names of Sadhu Vallabhdas balakdas and Rajaram Balakdas in the year 1953. He submitted that the petitioners have purchased said land from the legal heirs of Vallabhdas Balakdas by way of registered Sale Deed dated 12.7.2007. He has submitted that on the basis of said Sale Deed an entry No.4056 was mutated in the names of the petitioners and, thereafter, Mamlatdar has rejected entry No.4056 on the ground that the land belongs to “Thakar Na Mandir Na Diveliya” and, therefore, it cannot be sold or transferred. According to him, no opportunity of being heard was provided to the present petitioners. He has submitted that against that order, the petitioners have preferred appeal No.38 of 2017 before the Collector, which is also dismissed without considering the submissions of the petitioners herein. According to him, in 2016, revision was preferred by the petitioners, which came to be dismissed. Mr.Majmudar, while referring to the documentary evidence has vehemently submitted that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners was never challenged before any authority. He has also submitted that the authorities have passed the impugned orders without considering legal provisions under the Bombay Land Revenue Code as well as various Government Resolutions. He has submitted that in view of Section 135-C of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, entry of a registered s