S. M. SONI, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER by this petition challenges the judgment and order dated 22. 5. 80 passed by the Joint Secretary Revenue Department Gujarat State Ahmedabad who has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector in Consolidation case No. 20/79 dated 26. 3. 80. Respondent no. 3 asked for permission of the Assistant Collector for sale of his Block No. 282 admeasuring one acre of village Sarsa to the petitioner. An agreement to sell that block was entered into in the year 1968 and pursuant thereto the petitioner was put in possession since then. The Assistant Collector while considering that application for permission found that there is a breach of sec. 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 (Act for short) as he found that the petitioner (purchaser) is not a contiguous owner entitled to purchase the said fragment. The Assistant Collector therefore cancelled the transfer under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 9 of the Act. He also imposed fine of Rs. 150/ -. The petitioner challenged the said order of Assistant Collector before the Special Secretary Revenue Department. The Special Secretary Revenue Department after hearing the parties dismissed the revision application being no. SLRD/kn/37/80 by his judgment and order dated 4. 6. 80. The Special Secretary also held that the land in dispute is a fragment and there is a relevant entry in the record of rights and the purchaser is not a contiguous owner and did not accept the say of the petitioner that he is the owner of Blocks nos. 286 287 and 282. He accordingly confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector. Petitioner being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Special Secretary has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Advocate Mr. Akshay Mehta for the petitioner has challenged the said orders on the grounds inter alia that in the facts and circumstances of the case sec. 7 Of the Act is not attracted at all as notice contemplated under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act is not proved to have been given by the authority; and that both the authorities erred in holding that the petitioner is not the owner of the contiguous blocks referred by him. Mr. V. J. Desai learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 at learned A. G. P. Mr. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act is not proved to have been given by the authority; and that both the authorities erred in holding that the petitioner is not the owner of the contiguous blocks referred by him. Mr. V. J. Desai learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 at learned A. G. P. Mr. Sompura for the respondents nos. 1 and 2 support the orders of both the authorities. They contended that once there is an entry in the record of rights showing that the land is a fragment presumption under sec. 135 J of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (Code for short) is attracted and it is to be presumed that the said entries are correct They also contended that once the lower authorities have held that there is an entry in the record of right as to the fragment of the land in dispute and it being a question of fact this court should not interfere while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless the same is proved to be perverse. ( 2 ) TRANSFER of a fragment is prohibited under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 7 of the Act. Such prohibition is with respect to a fragment in respect of which a notice has been given under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act Thus to attract the applicability of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 7 of the Act the authority should first satisfy that the fragment is one with respect to which a notice under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act is served. Transfer of fragment for which notice under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 is served is prohibited except to the owner of the contiguous survey number or recognised sub-division of a survey number. Mr. Mehta learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the authority has failed to establish that notice under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 with respect to the fragment in dispute is given. Mr. Mehta contended that provisions of sec. 135 J of the Code are not attracted with respect to sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act. They are attracted at the most with respect to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act reads as under :6 (1 ). Mr. Mehta contended that provisions of sec. 135 J of the Code are not attracted with respect to sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act. They are attracted at the most with respect to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act reads as under :6 (1 ). On notification of a standard area under sub-section (3) of section 5 of a local area all fragments in the local area shall be entered as such in the Record of Rights or where there is no Record of Rights in such village record as the State Government may prescribe. (2) Notice of every entry made under sub-section (1) shall be given in the manner prescribed for the giving of notice under the relevant Code of an entry in the register of mutations. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 provides that notice of every entry made under sub-sec. (1) shall be given in the manner prescribed for the giving of notice under the relevant Code Of an entry in the register of mutations. There is no dispute that the relevant Code referred to in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act is the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Under sub-sec. (I ) of sec. 6 on notification of a standard area under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 5 of a local area all fragments are entered in the Record of Rights. This entry as to fragment in the Record of Rights is a statutory requirement of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6. Such entry is presumed to be correct under sec. 135 J of the Code. Sec. 135 J of the Code reads as under:135 J. Presumption of correctness of entries in the record of rights and register of mutations: an entry in the record of rights and a certified entry in the register of mutations shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore. Therefore under sec. 135 J of the Code there is a presumption for (1) an entry in the record of rights; and (2) a certified entry in the register of mutations. sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act provides that notice of every entry made under sub-sec. (1) shall be given in the manner prescribed for giving of notice under the relevant Code of an entry in the register of mutations. sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act provides that notice of every entry made under sub-sec. (1) shall be given in the manner prescribed for giving of notice under the relevant Code of an entry in the register of mutations. Now if a certified entry in the register of mutations is produced in the instant case to show that a notice of an entry under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 6 is given then the presumption as to the correctness thereof will be available to the respondents under sec. 135 J of the Act. In the instant case neither the authority nor the owner of the fragment has produced a certified entry in the register of mutations. An entry in the record of rights and the certified entry in the register of mutations are two different things. Sec. 135 C of the Code reads as under:135 C. Acquisition of rights to be reported. Any person acquiring by succession survivorship inheritance partition purchase mortgage gift lease or otherwise any right as holder occupant owner mortgage landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of the rent of revenue thereof shall report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the village accountant within three months from the date of such acquisition and the said village accountant shall at once give a written acknowledgement 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 village accountant. EXPLANATION 1: The rights mentioned above include a mortgage without possession but do not include an easement or a charge not amounting to a mortgage of the kind specified in section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 (IV of 18s82 ). EXPLANATION II: A person in whose favour a mortgage is charged or extinguished or lease determines acquires a right within the meaning of this section. ( 3 ) THEREFORE entry referred to in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 6 is an entry under sec. 135 C of the Code. Sec. 135 D of the Code refers to register of mutations and register of disputed cases. The same reads as under: 135 D. Register Or mutations and register of disputed cases. ( 3 ) THEREFORE entry referred to in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 6 is an entry under sec. 135 C of the Code. Sec. 135 D of the Code refers to register of mutations and register of disputed cases. The same reads as under: 135 D. Register Or mutations and register of disputed cases. (1) The village accountant shall enter in a register of mutations every report made to him under section 135 C and shall also make an entry therein respecting the acquisition of any right of the kind mentioned in the first paragraph of section 135 C which he has reason to believe to have taken place and of which a report has not been made to him under the said section. (2) Whenever village accountant make an entry in the register of mutations he shall at the same time post up a complete copy of the entry in a conspicuous place in the chavdi and shall give written intimation to all persons appearing from the record of rights or rights of mutations to be interested in the mutation and to any other person whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein. (3) Should any objection to any entry made under sub-section (1) in the register of mutations be made either orally or in writing to the village accountant it shall be the duly of the village accountant to enter the particulars of the objection in a register of disputed cases. (4) Orders disposing of objections entered in the register of disputed cases shall be recorded in the register of mutations by such officers and in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made by the State Government in this behalf. (5) The transfer of entries from the register of mutations to the record of rights shall be effected subject to such rules as may be the State Government in this behalf provided that an entry in the register of mutations shall not be transferred to the record of rights until such entry has been duly certified. (6) Entries in register of mutations how to be certified: Entries in the register of mutations shall be tested and if found correct or after correction as the case may be shall be certified by a revenue of ricer of rank not lower than that of a Mamlatdars first karkun. (6) Entries in register of mutations how to be certified: Entries in the register of mutations shall be tested and if found correct or after correction as the case may be shall be certified by a revenue of ricer of rank not lower than that of a Mamlatdars first karkun. (7)TENANCIES: The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of perpetual tenancies and also in respect of any tenancies mentioned in a notification under sub-section (2) of section 135 B but the provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of their tenancies which shall be entered in a register of tenancies in such manner and under such procedure as the State Government may prescribe by rules made in this behalf. Section 135 D of the Code refers to the entry in the Register of mutation. There is nothing on the record to show that any notice contemplated under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 is given much less any entry pertaining to such notice is made in the register of mutation under sec. 135 D of the Code. Thus in absence of any proof of notice of an entry made under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act there is no question of any presumption to be drawn for the correctness thereof. Thus in my opinion the authorities have failed to establish that notice contemplated under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act is given. As I hold that no notice under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act is given provisions of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 7 of the Act are not attracted and there is no prohibition on the owner of the fragment to transfer the same. Thus the transfer to the petitioner cannot be said to be in contravention of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 7 of the Act. Both the authorities below have therefore erred in holding that the transfer is in breach of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 7 of the Act. The orders of both the authorities are therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. In the result the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. However there shall be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. .