Vipul M. Pancholi, J.:— Rule. learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antani appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and learned advocate, Mr. G.M. Amin for the respondent no. 2 waive service of notice of rule.

2. In this petition, which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provision of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.02.2018/08.03.2018 passed by the respondent - SSRD in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/JNDH/104/2017, the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the respondent - Collector and the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the respondent - Mamlatdar.

3. The facts of the present case in nutshell are as under,

3.1 The father of the petitioners had purchased the land bearing Survey No. 237 admeasuring 1 Acre 35 Gunthas situated in the sim of village : Pipli, Taluka : Keshod from the father of the respondent no. 2 herein by executing registered sale deed dated 20.04.1965 and in pursuance thereto, the possession of the said land was also handed over to the father of the petitioners and, thereafter, the father of the petitioners started agriculture activity on the said land during his life time and after his death also, the petitioners are in possession and are cultivating the said land.

3.2 Thereafter on the basis of the registered sale deed, the petitioners applied for mutation of the entry in the revenue record and in pursuance thereto, Entry No. 3814 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 17.03.2015.

3.3 While mutating Entry No. 3814, notice as required under Section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code was issued upon the concerned parties, however only because of the fact that the seller is one Rana Sanga and name of Ala Rana is running in the revenue record, the said application was rejected on 14.05.2015.

3.4 Thereafter also, on the basis of the registered sale deed, the petitioner no. 1 applied for mutation of entry in the revenue record and based on it, Entry No. 4042 came to be mutated in revenue record. However at that time, the respondent no. 2 raised objection, which led to registration of Takrari Case No. 97/2016. Thereafter, the respondent - Mamlatdar, by an order dated 30.11.2016, rejected the mutation of Entry No. 4042.

3.5 Against the said order passed by the respondent - Mamlatdar, the petitioners approached the respondent - Deputy Collector by filing RTS Appeal No. 120/2016-17. The respondent - Deputy Collector, by an order dated 27.06.2017, allowed the said RTS Appeal and set aside the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the respondent - Mamlatdar and also set aside the order pertaining to mutation of Entry No. 3814.

3.6 Against the said order setting aside the order pertaining to mutation of Entry No. 3814, the petitioners approached the respondent - Collector by filing Revision Application No. 192/2016-17. The respondent - Collector, by an order dated 04.10.2017, rejected the said Revision Application.

3.7 Against the said orders, the petitioners approached the respondent - SSRD by filing Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/JNDH/104/2017, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2018/08.03.2018. Therefore, the present petition is filed.

4. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Murali Devnani for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antani appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and learned advocate, Mr. G.M. Amin for the respondent no. 2.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the father of the petitioners has purchased the land in question from the father of the respondent no. 2 by executing registered sale deed dated 20.04.1965 and based on it, possession was also taken over and then, he started cultivating the land, however after the death of the father of the petitioners, the petitioners applied for the mutation of the entry so that their names can be mutated in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed and based on it, Entry No. 3814 came to be mutated on 17.03.2015, however only because of the fact that when the notice was issued under Section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, the seller is one Rana Sanga and name of Ala Rana is running in the revenue record and, therefore, the said application was rejected. It is contended that since father of the petitioners had not mutated entry based on registered sale deed, the name of the respondent no. 2 came to be mutated in the revenue record being heirs of Rana Sanga, who sold the land to the father of the petitioner, therefore, the authorities ought to have mutated the entry based on registered documents in the revenue record. It is also contended that if the order passed by the respondent - Mamlatdar is perused, it is clearly observed that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and the said finding is based on Rojkam dated 15.11.2016, however, none of the respondent authorities have appreciated those facts and turned down the request of the petitioners. It is also submitted that this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court have time and again issued guidelines to the revenue authority to mutate the entry in the revenue record based on registered documents. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside and the revenue authority may be directed to mutate the name of the petitioners in the revenue record based on registered sale deed.

6. On the other hands, learned AGP has opposed this petition and submitted that there is delay in mutating the entry, for which, no explanation has been given by the petitioners. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have not committed any error while considering the case of the petitioner and findings arrived at by the respondent authorities while passing impugned orders are based on material and evidence. It is, therefore, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.

7. Learned advocate, Mr. Amin appearing for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that after the death of his father, he became the owner of the land in question and, hence, his name was mutated in the revenue record and, hence after considering the revenue record, the application made by the petitioner was rejected. Therefore, the respondent authorities have not committed any error while passing impugned orders. He further submitted that there is delay of more than 50 years in applying for mutation of the entry based on sale deed, which has rightly been not accepted by the revenue authorities. He, therefore, urged that this petition may be dismissed as the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.

8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material and evidence on record, it has emerged that the dispute is with regard to the mutation of entry based on registered documents because despite the petitioners are having registered documents i.e. sale deed in their favour, the respondent authorities have not mutated their name.

9. From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the father of the petitioners purchased the land in question from the father of the respondent no. 2, who is original owner of the land in question by executing registered sale deed dated 20.04.1965 and then, he was in possession of the land in question and was cultivating the land and after his sad demise, the petitioners are in possession and are cultivating the land and at the time of purchase of the land, the father of the petitioners had not mutated the entry based on registered documents in the revenue record and in between, being the legal heirs of Rana Sanga (original land owner), the name of the respondent no. 2 came to be mutated in the revenue record after his sad demise. As it transpires from the findings given by the respondent - Mamlatdar while passing an order dated 30.11.2016, the possession of the land in question is with the petitioners, which is supported by the Rojkdam dated 15.11.2016. Thus there is no dispute about the ownership of the land and the possession of the land. Therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have mutated the name of the petitioners in the revenue record based on registered sale deed. It is submitted that reason behind turning down the request of the petitioner is that the name of the seller reflects in the revenue record is “Rana Sanga” and at the time of applying for mutation of the said entry, name of “Ala Rana” (i.e. the respondent no. 2 herein) is running. As observed by the respondent - SSRD in the impugned order, the petitioners have not raised any objection with regard to the Entry No. 821 mutated in the year 1980 and also Entry No. 1039 mutated in the year 1988 though they are having registered sale deed of the year 1965 and after a period of 50 years, request for mutation of entry has been made. However, it is required to be stated that in fact, the petitioners were not aware about the mutation of such entries nor any notice has been served upon them and, hence, they could not raise any objection.

10. In the facts of the present case, as stated above, the dispute is with regard to the mutation of entry, which the respondent authorities are under an obligation to mutate based on registered documents. Therefore at this stage, Section 135C of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code is required to be referred to, which reads as under,

“135C. Any person acquiring the right on any land by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortagage, gift, 8[lease or Certificate of No Dues made under subsection (2) and (3) of section 125L and section 133(2), or otherwise] any right as holder, occupant, owner, mortagagee, assignee of the rent thereof, shall make a report of such acquisition of such right, either manually or electronically, to the designated officer within the period of three months from the date of such acquisition, and the said designated officer shall at once, give a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such report to the person making it:

Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor, or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person, having charge of his property, shall make the report to the designated officer:

Provided further that any person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document shall be exempted from the obligation to report to the designated officer:

Explanation I.—The rights mentioned above include a mortgage without possession, but do not include an easement or a charge not amounting to a mortagage of the kind specified in section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Explanation II.-A person in whose favour a mortgage is discharged or extinguished, or lease determines, acquires a right within the meaning of this section.]”

11. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that if a person is acquiring the right on any land by succession, survivorship, purchase etc. any acquisition of right as holder, occupant, owner etc. thereof shall be reported to the Designated Officer within a period of three months from the date of such acquisition. However if a person acquires right by virtue of the registered document, he is exempted from making an application to report to the Designated Officer. Here in the present case, the original land owner sold the land in question to the father of the petitioners in the year 1965 by registered sale deed, however, it was not necessary for the father of the petitioners to inform to the revenue authority within stipulated period about his acquisition of such right in the land in question. After the death of the father of the petitioners, the petitioners thought it fit to inform to the revenue authority for mutation of the entry on the basis of said registered sale deed and, therefore, he requested the revenue authority in the year 2015 for mutation of the entry on the basis of the registered sale deed, therefore, entry no. 3814 came to be mutated on 17.03.2015.

12. This Court has considered similar issue in a judgment in case of Gandabhai Dalpatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2005) 2 GLR 1370, wherein it has been observed in Para Nos. 9 and 10 as under,

“9. It is the consistent view taken by this Court in catena of judgments that the revenue authorities while dealing with RTS proceedings had no jurisdiction and/or authority to decide the question of title and if there is any dispute with regard to title the parties are to be relegated to the Civil Court. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha - (1969) 2 SCC 187 : AIR 1969 SC 1297 and judgment of this Court in the case of Ratilal Chunilal Solanki v. Shantilal Chunilal Solanki - (1996) 2 GLR 525 and Siddharth B. Shah v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1999) 3 GLR 2527, the revenue authorities cannot decide the disputed question of title to the property and they have to merely go by the documents produced before them. Even this Court has held in the case of Nathabhai Meraman Darji (Supra) that when a document of registered sale deed is produced before the authority, the revenue authorities are bound to give effect to the same and are not required to decide the question of title.

10. Even this Court in a recent judgment in the case of L.R.s of Popat Khima Ramani v. Collector, Rajkot, reported in (2003) 1 GLH 30, has considered the scope of revenue authorities while deciding the question with regard to mutation entry and the powers under Section 135 and Rule 108, has held that revenue authorities are not to decide the question about title and the revenue authorities are to make necessary entries on the basis of decision of Civil Court. It is further held in the said judgment that the revenue authorities are invested with limited powers under Section 135 and they cannot assume to themselves certain powers conferred on them by law and they cannot assume jurisdiction of Civil Court. The revenue authorities cannot decide validity of transaction on touchstone of statutory provision occurring in some enactment and that they cannot decide disputed question of title. In fact, this Court has gone to the extent that when a dispute as to the title arises the parties have to go to the competent Civil Court. In the present case, in fact the Civil Suit is pending between the parties and the Civil Court is to decide all these questions which are raised by the petitioner in the present Special Civil Application with regard to validity of the power of attorney, the genuineness of sale deed, and the authority of power of attorney holder on the basis of the power of attorney. Considering the fact that the suit is pending between the parties and that the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the sale deed before the Civil Court and that there is an injunction in the said Suit, in fact the Secretary (Appeals) has tried to strike the balance and has tried to protect the interests of all the parties by directing that the factum of injunction granted by the Civil Court should also be noted in the entry and that the entry in favour of respondent No. 5 would be subject to the ultimate outcome of the suit pending between the parties in which the legality and validity of the sale deed is challenged. It cannot be said that there is any illegality committed by the Secretary (Appeals). On the contrary, the judgment and order passed by the revisional authority, i.e. Secretary (Appeals) is in consonance with the provisions of Section 135 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court with regard to the powers of revenue authorities while dealing with the question of mutation entries. The revenue authorities are not required to consider with regard to the genuineness of the sale deed, the powers and authority of the power of attorney holder under the power of attorney and the question with regard to the title. What is required to be done by the Sub-Registrar at the time when the sale deed was executed cannot be permitted to be done by the Mamlatdar and/or revenue authorities while deciding the question with regard to mutation entry, more particularly the entry in the record of rights is only having a presumptive value and only for a fiscal purpose of recovering and payment of revenue and it does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of any party in the property.”

13. Thus from the aforesaid decision, it can be said that the respondent authority is required to mutate the entry on the basis of the registered sale deed produced by the petitioners and the rights of the parties and the dispute raised by the private respondents can be decided by the competent civil court and the revenue authority is not required to go in that issue.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 28.02.2018/08.03.2018 passed by the respondent - SSRD in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/JNDH/104/2017, the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the respondent - Collector and the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the respondent - Mamlatdar are hereby quashed and set aside. The concerned respondent authority shall mutate entry no. 3814 in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed produced by the petitioners. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.