Administrative authorities are obligated to rectify manifest clerical errors in land records regardless of technical objections regarding the applicant's standing, as the duty to maintain accurate public records supersedes procedural rigidities where documentation proves the correctness of the requested amendment.

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

==============================================================

==============================================================

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Devanshiba Rana, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent – State authorities.

2. Heard Mr. Kishan P. Kotak, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Devanshiba Rana, learned AGP appearing for the respondent - State authorities.

3. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs:

“23. In the premises aforesaid, Petitioners most humbly and respectfully prays that:

(A) YOUR LORDSHIP'S may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIP'S may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned SSRD passed in MVV/ HKP/GDHN/33 of 2018 as well as order dated 23.03.2018 passed by learned District Collector in CB/R.T.S/Magodi/Revision/No. 223 of 2011 as well as order dated 20.08.2011 passed by learned Dy. Collector, Gandhinagar RTS/Appeal/SR-263/2010 as in well as order dated 21.05.2010 passed by learned Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar in Remand Takrari 456/2007; Case no.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIP'S be further please to direct the Concern Mamlatdar to Certify Mutation Entry no. 3511 and 3512;

(D) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, LORDSHIPS stay the YOUR implementation, operation and execution of the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned SSRD passed in MVV/HKP/GDHN/33 of 2018 as well as order dated 23.03.2018 passed by learned District Collector in CB/R.T.S/Magodi/Revision/No. 223 of 2011 as well as order dated 20.08.2011 passed by learned Dy. Collector, Gandhinagar in RTS/Appeal/SR-263/2010 as well as order dated 21.05.2010 passed by learned Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar in Remand Takrari Case no. 456/2007and further be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain status quo with regards to the land in question;

(E) Any other and further relief that may deem fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;”

4. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department (for short, “SSRD”) in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/GDHN/33 of 2018 whereby, the SSRD rejected the revision application preferred by the petitioners resulting that entry on strenth of registered sale deed came to be rejected on the ground that application for correction in name of the vendor in the revenue was preferred by the purchaser, i.e., petitioner, though the affidavit to correct the name was made by the legal heir of the vendor.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the error in entering the name of the vendor was on the part of the revenue authority as correct name of the vendor in the mutation entry but at the time of giving effect to 7/12 extract the revenue office committed a mistake in reflecting the correct name. It is further the case of the petitioners that no dispute is raised by any of the legal heir with respect to the corrected name of the vendor. In such a situation, the impugned order