JUDGMENT : V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.3.2003 passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is an agriculturist and the husband of the petitioner is also an agriculturist. The petitioner purchased agricultural land at village Sidsar admeasuring 2 acres 38 gunthas of revenue survey No. 6 paiki from Mr. Thakarsinhji Ravjibhai Patel. The said land was purchased by registered sale deed executed on 22.2.2000 and the same is registered with sub-registrar. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was born at village Tarpada, Taluka Umrala of district Bhavnagar. The name of father of the petitioner is Parshottambhai Bhavanbhai Vaghasiya. Father of the petitioner was holding agricultural land at village Tarpada and the petitioner being one of the legal heirs of her father is also an agriculturist and therefore she is entitled to purchase agricultural land in accordance with law. 3. It is the say of the petitioner that the Collector issued the show cause notice on 1.5.2002 to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause why her purchase of the land by registered sale deed should not be declared as violative of Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') and why the petitioner should not be summarily evicted from the land in dispute on the ground that she is not an agriculturist. 4. The petitioner submitted her reply and pointed out that she is an agriculturist holding the agricultural land. In spite of that, the Collector passed the impugned order on 6.3.2003, whereby the Collector held that at the time of purchase of the land in dispute by the petitioner, she was not an agriculturist and therefore there is a violation of Section 54 of the Ordinance. It is further held that as per Section 75 of the Ordinance, when the transfer of the land is illegal, the possession of the petitioner is also illegal and therefore she is required to be evicted from the land in question and the land in question is ordered to be vested in the government and necessary direction was given to Mamlatdar, Bhanvagar. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Sharma for the respondents. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya submitted that father of the petitioner was an agriculturist and after the death of the father of the petitioner, name of his legal heirs were mutated in the revenue record by change entry ('ferfar' entry) No. 418 on 11.3.1994. The said entry was certified on 24.6.1994. Thus, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record. However, on the basis of the declaration given by the four sisters including the present petitioner, their names were deleted from the revenue records. Thereafter, change entry No. 509 was mutated on 19.9.2001 which was certified whereby the name of the petitioner was included in the revenue record on the basis of the declaration. The Collector thereafter initiated suo motu proceedings and taken the said entry into revision under Rule 108(6-A) of the Gujarat Revenue Rules, 1972 and cancelled the said entry No. 509. The petitioner, therefore, filed revision application before Special Secretary, Revenue Department (hereinafter referred to as 'SSRD') and SSRD vide order dated 16/26.9.2011 partly allowed the revision application and quashed the order of the Collector and the matter was remanded back to the Collector on the ground that the present petition is pending before this Court. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya thereafter submitted that on remand, the Collector considered the matter and passed the order on 17.3.2012 whereby he has withdrawn the show cause notice issued by him on 1.10.2011 by which entry No. 509 was taken in suo motu revision. It is further submitted that there also, the Collector referred to the order passed by the SSRD and held that the said proceedings will be subject to outcome of the present petition. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has placed on record the order dated 16/26.9.2011 passed by SSRD as well as order dated 17.3.2012 passed by the Collector. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya, therefore, submitted that in view of the subsequent development which has taken place during the pendency of this petition, it can be said that as on date, entry No. 509 is in force and as per the said entry, the petitioner is an agriculturist. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya, therefore, submitted that in view of the subsequent development which has taken place during the pendency of this petition, it can be said that as on date, entry No. 509 is in force and as per the said entry, the petitioner is an agriculturist. If the petitioner is an agriculturist, the impugned order passed by the Collector in the present petition is required to be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Sharma mainly contended that the SSRD has passed the order on 16/26.9.2011 in revision application in connection with the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Collector with regard to entry No. 509. However, in the said order, SSRD has specifically observed that the order of Collector is quashed subject to outcome of the present petition. Thereafter, on remand the Collector has withdrawn the notice issued by him in connection with entry No. 509. Hence, both the aforesaid orders would not be helpful to the petitioner and this petition be considered on its own merits. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it is revealed that father of the petitioner was an agriculturist and after his death, name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record but subsequently her name was deleted on the basis of the declaration given by her. It is also revealed that husband of the petitioner is also an agriculturist. At this stage, if the impugned order passed by the Collector on 6.3.2003 is examined, it is the case of the Collector that the petitioner is not an agriculturist and therefore this transaction is void cannot be accepted on the ground that on the date of passing of the order in the year 2003, entry No. 509 was in force as the same was certified on 19.9.2001. It is further revealed from the record that the Collector has taken the entry No. 509 in suo motu revision in the year 2005 and passed an order on 6.10.2005 by which entry No. 509 was deleted, against which the petitioner filed revision application before SSRD and SSRD quashed the order of the Collector mainly on the ground that this Court has passed an interim order in the present petition and therefore Collector could not have passed the order of deletion of entry No. 509. Subsequently, Collector also withdrew his suo motu notice. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the development which has taken place during the pendency of this petition with regard to the entry No. 509, it can be said that as on date, entry No. 509 is in force. If the entry No. 509 is in force, then it can be said that the petitioner is an agriculturist. If the petitioner is an agriculturist, the Collector could not have passed the order on 6.3.2003 by observing that the petitioner is not an agriculturist invoking the provisions of Section 54 of Ordinance. It is not in dispute that the Collector has taken entry No. 509 in suo motu revision in the year 2005 whereas the entry No. 509 was certified in the year 2001. The impugned order has been passed by the Collector alleging violation of Section 54 of the Ordinance on 6.3.2003. Thus, on the date of passing of the impugned order, it can be said that the petitioner was an agriculturist in view of entry No. 509. 10. Hence, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.3.2003 passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar is quashed an set aside. Rule is made absolute. Petition Allowed.