JUDGMENT : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the legality of the order dated 30.1.2002/14.2.2002 passed by the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), respondent No.2 in RTS Revision Application No.44/2001, whereby the respondent No.2 has rejected the Revision Application filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 12.6.2001 passed by the respondent No.3-Collector in RTS Appeal No.70/1999. 2. As per the case of the petitioner, one Shantilal Jivandas Shah was the original owner of land bearing Survey No.117, admeasuring 4 Are 76 sq. mtrs., situated at Village Zankhvav, Taluka Mangrol, District Surat. After the death of the said Shantilal Jivandas Shah, his wife Shantaben and other heirs sold 224 sq. yards of land out of Survey No.117 to the petitioner by executing the sale deed dated 6.10.1976. The Entry No.778 with regard to the said sale was also made in the Revenue Record on 24.9.1986 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter on 27.6.1989, the Mamlatdar, Mangrol made the entry being No.891, mutating the name of Minaben, Widow of Rajendrakumar Shantilal Shah i.e. the respondent No.7 in respect the entire Survey No.117, including the part of the land sold to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved by the said mutation of Entry No.891 made by the Mamlatdar, filed RTS Appeal No.7/1999 before the Deputy Collector Olpad, who vide the order dated 23.7.1999 partly cancelled the said Entry No.891 in respect of the part of the land sold to the petitioner (Annexure-D). The respondent No.7 Minaben, therefore, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred RTS Appeal No.70/1999 before the Collector, who vide the order dated 12.6.2001 set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector by holding that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was in violation of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority Guardianship Act and also in violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Fragmentation Act”), as also in violation of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Tenancy Act”). The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said order of the Collector before the Respondent No.2 by filing RTS Revision Application No.44/2009, which came to be dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide the impugned order dated 14.2.2002. 3. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said order of the Collector before the Respondent No.2 by filing RTS Revision Application No.44/2009, which came to be dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide the impugned order dated 14.2.2002. 3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Counsel Ms. Shah for the petitioner that the Collector while exercising the appellate power under the provisions contained in the Bombay Land Revenue Code could not have assumed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and held that there was violation of the provisions contained in the Hindu Minority Guardianship Act or the Fragmentation Act, when there was no proceeding initiated by any authority under any of such statutes. She also submitted that the Mamlatdar had made the impugned Entry No.891 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.117, part of which was sold out to the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. However, the learned AGP Mr. Patel, relying upon the observations made by the Collector and SSRD in the impugned orders submitted that there was gross violation of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act in respect of which proceedings have been initiated, and that there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the authorities, this Court may not interfere with the said orders, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Variava, learned Counsel for the respondent No.7, supporting the submissions made by the learned AGP, and further relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Saburbhai Hemabhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in 2000 (1) GLH 580 and in the case of Patel Jividas Trikamdas and Ors. Vs. Collector and Ors., reported in AIR 1997 Gujarat 121 submitted that the period of limitation would not be applicable when the validity of the illegal and non-est order of the authority was under challenge and that in the instant case, the sale made in favour of the petitioner being in violation of the Fragmentation Act, the Entry No.891 was rightly made in favour of the respondent no.7 in respect of the entire Survey No.117. 6. 6. In the instant case, it appears that though the Entry being No.778 was made in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 6.10.1976 executed by the deceased Shantaben and others in respect of the part of land bearing Survey No.117, the Mamlatdar made Entry No.891 mutating the name of respondent No.7 in respect of the entire Survey No.117 on 27.6.1989, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said order of the Mamlatdar was set aside by the Deputy Collector by partly allowing the appeal of the petitioner in respect of the part of Survey No.117 sold out to the petitioner as per the sale deed dated 6.10.1976. The said order of the Deputy Collector was set aside by the Collector by passing the impugned order, holding that the said sale in favour of the petitioner was in violation of the provisions contained in the Hindu Minority Guardianship Act, as also the Fragmentation Act. It is not disputed that the respondent No.7 had not filed any suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, nor any authority had initiated any proceedings under the Fragmentation Act or other Act alleging that the sale in favour of the petitioner was in violation of any of such statutes. Under the circumstances, the respondent-Collector could not have assumed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for the purpose of holding that such sale was in violation of the Hindu Minority Guardianship Act or in violation of the Fragmentation Act or the Tenancy Act. It is needless to state that the scope of RTS proceedings is very limited and is confined to the maintenance of revenue record for fiscal purpose only. The authorities conducting RTS proceedings have no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the transaction entered into between the parties. In the opinion of the Court the ratio of decision in case of Jayantilal Jethalal Soni Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2005 (4) GLR 3354 clinches the issue. The relevant paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof are reproduced as under :- “7. In the opinion of the Court the ratio of decision in case of Jayantilal Jethalal Soni Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2005 (4) GLR 3354 clinches the issue. The relevant paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof are reproduced as under :- “7. It appears that if a registered sale deed is executed by the holder of the land, it confers the right pertaining to the land in question in favour of the purchaser of the land and, therefore, the rights pertaining to the land in question in normal circumstances can be said to have been acquired over the land in question for which recording is required to be made in the revenue record. It is also well settled that the revenue entries are having value only for fiscal purpose and more particularly for the purpose of recovery of revenue and it neither confers any right or title over the property, nor does it take away the right or title in the property which otherwise cannot be available under the law. However, the question which arises for the consideration is if a sale deed is executed by the holder of the land which runs prima facie counter to the other statutory provisions of other enactment or is barred under the other enactment or it alters or disturbs the rights of the persons under the other enactment then, can the revenue authority shut its eyes by ignoring such flagrant violation of such law or if it is considered, what will be the proper course to be followed? In case of "Evergreen Apartment Co-op. Housing Society" (supra), this Court has expressed the view that it is not open to the revenue authority exercising power under the Code to exercise power under the other enactment and to decide in respect to the breaches which are committed under the other enactment and thereby to uncertify the entry or to cancel the entry made in the revenue record. In case of "Janardan D. Patel v. State of Gujarat" (supra) at para 11, it has been observed as under: "11. If any such question arises, the matter should be referred to the authority empowered to deal with under the said other enactment. For example, the validity of a transaction on the basis of Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Tenancy Act for brief) is sought to be challenged. If any such question arises, the matter should be referred to the authority empowered to deal with under the said other enactment. For example, the validity of a transaction on the basis of Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Tenancy Act for brief) is sought to be challenged. That question cannot be decided by revenue authorities in RTS proceedings. In such situation, the correct procedure to be followed would be to refer the matter to the authority empowered under the Tenancy Act for his decision. The necessary mutation entry may be made only after the decision of that authority under the Tenancy Act is received. It would, however, not be open to revenue authorities in RTS proceedings to decide that question." 8. Therefore, keeping in view of the aforesaid observations made by this Court in the above-referred judgement, it appears that it would not be proper to hold that even if there are breaches under other enactment or such transfer is barred under the other enactment, the revenue authorities exercising power under Code could have ignored the same for the purpose of recording the mutation. At the same time, the authorities exercising power under the Code will have to exercise the jurisdiction within the limits of the statutory provisions of the Code. Therefore, on reconciling of both the aspects, it appears that in a case where the transfer of a land is made by registered sale deed and if the revenue authority prima facie is of the view that such transfer is either barred under the other enactment or is resulting into a breach of other enactment or is to result into adversely affecting the rights under the other enactment and consequently sale is prohibited, then in that case, the appropriate course for the revenue authority would be to record the entry for registered sale deed with the express observations that the registered sale deed is prima facie in breach of the other enactment and simultaneously refer the matter to the competent authority under the other concerned enactment of which breach is committed and the entry should be made subject to the final decision which may be taken by the competent authority under the other concerned enactment. This Court is inclined to take such view, because the one, who may be a bonafide purchaser or one who is interested to purchase the property would normally rely upon the revenue entry for enquiring into the title and the possession of the property. If the entry is certified on the basis of registered sale deed as it is, without recording for aforesaid qualification or clarification, the resultant effect would be that it will not be made known to the either person interested or to the other party who may act upon the revenue entry that the present transaction may be in breach of the other enactment and consequently it may result into not giving correct picture of the title or possession of the property in question in accordance with law. If the entry, on the basis of the sale deed is not at all effected, with the aforesaid qualification or without aforesaid qualification, it may also conversely mislead the public at large and also to those persons who act upon the revenue record, because there will be no recording of such transactions of registered sale deed which has the effect of conferring the right on property unless it is prohibited by the relevant statute under the other enactment or unless such sale deed is declared as null and void by the competent authority or through the process known to law. Therefore, it cannot be said that the authority exercising power under the Land Revenue Code has absolutely no jurisdiction to even prima facie consider the matter as to whether the breach of the other enactment is committed or not. At the most, it can be said that the authority exercising power under the code has no power to conclude as to whether the breach of the other enactment by the impugned transfer or registered sale deed is made or not.” 7. It appears that after the order passed by the Collector, the Mamlatdar and ALT had issued the notice to the petitioner under Section 84B of the Tenancy Act, and the Deputy Collector had issued the notice to the petitioner for the alleged violation of the Fragmentation Act, however, the said proceedings do not appear to have proceeded further in view of the pendency of the Revision Application before the respondent No.2 and thereafter pendency of this petition before this Court. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issue as to whether there was any violation of the Fragmentation Act or any other Act, the Court is of the opinion that the Respondent-Collector while exercising the powers in RTS proceedings could not have declared the sale made in favour of the petitioner as illegal, and could not have confirmed the entry made in favour of the respondent No.7 in respect of the entire land bearing Survey No.117 including the area which was sold out to the petitioner by registered sale deed. The respondent No.2 also has committed an error in confirming the said order passed by the Collector and, therefore, both the orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders dated 30.1.2002/14.2.2002 passed by the respondent No.2-Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), in RTS Revision Application No.44/2001 and dated 12.6.2001 passed by the respondent No.3-Collector, in RTS Appeal No.70/1999 are quashed and set aside. It is clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion as to whether the petitioner has committed any violation of any of the other statutes or not. 9. The petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed.