JUDGMENT & ORDER : P. P. Bhatt, J. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying to issue any appropriate writ/direction in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction and thereby quash and set aside the order dated 27.03.2015 passed by respondent no.3-Mamlatdar, Ghatlodia passed in RTS/Entry No.10761/C.No.8/2015 at Annexure-A and also pass an effective order/direction to cancel Entry No.9757 (with respect to Survey No.16/3), Entry No.9924, Entry No.10148 directing revenue authorities to clearly show the ownership and occupation of the petitioners qua land bearing Survey No.16/3 by ignoring the ambiguous observation of the Civil Court made in the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2011 in Regular Civil Suit No.162 of 1989 in tune with order dated 25.03.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No.17502 of 2012 and order dated 14.10.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1013 of 2014 in the facts of the present case. 2. The brief facts of the present case are as under: 2.1 On 07.02.1985, defendant nos.1 to 4 of Regular Civil Suit No.162/1989 sold the land in question (bearing Survey No.16/3 Bodakdev) to defendant no.5-Suresh Manilal by registered sale deed. 2.2 In the year 1989, the plaintiff-respondent no.2 herein - Fulaji Rumalji filed Regular Civil Suit No.162/1989 with an averment that defendant nos.1 to 4 had no authority to sell the land in question as well the suit lands which were sold to another defendants. Simultaneously entries to the sale deed of defendants including the entry of the land in question of defendant no.5 of sale deed dated 07.02.1985 were subject matter of RTS proceedings at the instance of the plaintiff-respondent no.2 herein; 2.3 Ultimately, the Secretary (Appeals) RD upheld the entries of the sale deed including the entry of sale of defendant no.5 by an order passed in the year 1994 subject to final outcome of the Civil Suit. 2.4 Pending Regular Civil Suit No.162/1989, the plaintiff voluntarily entered into compromise with defendant nos.1 to 5 in respect of Survey No.16/3 (land in question) only and submitted pursis below Exh.:223 to withdraw the suit unconditionally and deletion of defendant nos.1 to 5 as party from the suit proceedings with respect to Survey No.16/3 in view of compromise. Judicial order was passed granting such permission below Exh.:223 on 23.02.2005 and attained finality. Judicial order was passed granting such permission below Exh.:223 on 23.02.2005 and attained finality. Immediately after the order defendant no.5 executed a sale deed in favour of the present petitioners by registered sale deed and pursuant to the registered sale deed, the names of the petitioners are entered in the revenue record in Village Form No.6 and Form No.7 X 12 showing ownership and possession since 2005. 2.5 In the year 2009, the petitioners being owners and occupants applied for development permission under Section 29 of the T.P. Act and has put up some constructions. 2.6 In spite of the deletion of defendant no.5 from the suit proceedings, while deciding the suit finally very unusually, the Civil Court on one hand dismissed the suit of plaintiff and on the other hand, in absence of defendant no.5 and in absence of present petitioners in whose favour the sale was executed, the Civil Court made some ambiguous observations with regard to transaction which is expressly barred under Sections 36A and 36B of the Fragmentation Act and Sections 85 and 85A of the Tenancy Act read with Section 9 of the CPC. The said observations made by the Civil Court were bad in law and without jurisdiction and flouting all civil norms and in gross violation of natural justice. Fortunately the said judgment and decree dated 14.02.2011 is held to be not binding to Suresh Manilal and petitioners at all in order dated 25.03.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No.17502 of 2012. Since due to unambiguous observations of the Civil Court in the impugned judgment and decree, respondent no.2 herein in utter abuse misled the several authorities including revenue authority and AMC and created multiple litigation through power of attorney of antisocial elements; respondent no.2's case before the revenue authority was in gross abuse of process of law; it is absolutely necessary to prevent abuse of process on the part of respondent no.2. Inspite of an order dated 25.03.2013 passed in SCA No.17502 of 2012, the petitioners had to suffer several revenue litigations for no fault in their part at all. Inspite of an order dated 25.03.2013 passed in SCA No.17502 of 2012, the petitioners had to suffer several revenue litigations for no fault in their part at all. 2.7 Ultimately, all those orders passed by the RTS authorities and adverse entries against the petitioners were under challenge in LPA No.1413 of 2014 before this Court and in the said LPA, this Court has set aside all the adverse entries made and certified against the petitioners and directed to pass appropriate order on 14.10.2014. 2.8 Inspite of two orders of this Court which were binding to the Mamlatdar, Ghatlodia - respondent no.3, again very unusually passed an impugned order dated 27.03.2015 by willfully violating the orders of this Court though direction/observation/finding both the decisions effectively explained while hearing with written submissions. Very shockingly Entry No.10761 was entered about the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by this Court, this Court had quashed all the adverse entries made against the interest of petitioners including Entry Nos.9924, 10418, etc. still by way of impugned order has approved and given effect of Entry Nos.9924, 10418 showing the name of respondent no.2 as owner and occupant, and thereby, caused serious injustice and committed contempt of this Court's two orders. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said order and effect given in the revenue record, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 3. Heard Mr.Shital R. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr.A.S. Timabalia, learned advocate for respondent no.9, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State and Ms.Nirmala B. Thakore, learned advocate for respondent no.2. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the revenue authority and effect given in the revenue record pursuant to the impugned order are clearly against the observation or findings of this Court inasmuch as contempt of this Court, and thereby, the order is clear example of misuse of power on the part of revenue authority that how the petitioners have been harassed since last 3 years in the revenue litigation without any legitimate basis and that too clearly undermining the decisions rendered by this Court at the instance of a third party having no locus at all. It is further submitted that the revenue authorities failed to appreciate that pursuant to the order dated 23.02.2005, Mutation Entry No.8910 was entered and certified on 27.02.2009 in Village Form No.6 noting Regular Civil Suit No.162/1989 as withdrawn unconditionally qua Survey No.16/3 recording the order of the Civil Court. Therefore, mutation of entry regarding the order of the Civil Court relating to transaction of Survey No.16/3 and consequently giving effect of entering the name of Fulaji Rumalji was per se bad in law and without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that RTS authority appears to have committed contempt of the order of this Court where the Court clearly negatived the contentions raised by Fulaji Rumalji regarding observations of the Civil Court and claim qua Survey No.16/3 on his part. It is further submitted that the entry of order of the Civil Court was entered mechanically by the revenue authority without appreciating the fact that respondent no.2-Fulaji Rumaji had already withdrawn Regular Civil Suit No.162/1989 by compromise pursis at Exh.:223 on 23.02.2005 and the learned Judge passed an order permitting the withdrawal in terms of the said compromise pursis on 23.02.2005, thus qua Survey No.16/3 once the suit was withdrawn under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC, it was not open for the learned Civil Court to make any observation in respect of Survey No.16/3 which was no more a subject matter of suit at all. Therefore, the observation of the Civil Court was even otherwise without jurisdiction besides the specific bar created under the Tenancy Act and Fragmentation Act, more particularly this Court vide its order dated 25.03.2013 passed in SCA No.17502 of 2012 has made amply clear that suit of respondent no.2 is dismissed; ambiguous observation made in the judgment dated 14.02.2011 passed in RCS No.162 of 1989 is not binding to either Suresh Manilal and present petitioners at all. Still, mechanically passing of order again and again by the revenue authority clearly reflects that how some one influence the authority to pass an order like present one impugned. It is further submitted that Entry No.5767 is the basis for making Entry No.9757 that was entered on 23.09.1996 with regard to sale deed dated 02.02.1989 in respect of Survey No.252/2 and it was not related to Survey No.16/3 (land in question) that fact is also ignored by the Mamlatdar for the reasons best known to her. It is further submitted that Entry No.5767 is the basis for making Entry No.9757 that was entered on 23.09.1996 with regard to sale deed dated 02.02.1989 in respect of Survey No.252/2 and it was not related to Survey No.16/3 (land in question) that fact is also ignored by the Mamlatdar for the reasons best known to her. It is further submitted that the authority has failed to appreciate that Fulaji Rumalji - plaintiff himself had voluntarily entered into compromise with defendant no.5 of the suit and had withdrawn the suit against defendant no.5 unconditionally by written pursis on receipt of the agreed consideration and allowed the Court to pass an order upon pursis below Exh. : 223. It is further submitted that pursuant to the said pursis, the Civil Court granted permission to plaintiff to withdraw the suit against defendant nos.1 to 5 with respect to Survey No.16/3 (land in question). 5. Learned advocate for respondent no.2 submits that against the civil proceedings, the respondents have preferred an appeal, wherein application for joining the present petitioners as defendant is moved and the same is pending, and therefore, any order is required to be passed in this petition till finalization of the appeal proceedings. 6. Learned advocate for respondent no.9 submits that based upon such false and wrong entry, the heirs of Shri Dahyaji Chhaganji sold the land being Survey No.16/3 to one Sureshkumar Manilal vide registered sale deed. The said transaction was mutated vide Entry No.3649 in the revenue record. On the other hand, the land bearing Survey No.252 was sold by the heirs of Babaji Chhaganji to Ashima Cooperative Housing Society Limited, vide registered document and the said transaction is mutated vide Entry Nos.3995, 3994 and 5767. It is further submitted that heirs of Babaji Chhaganji challenged Entry No.2719 made in favour of respondent no.2 and his father before the revenue authority, wherein the revenue authority was pleased to uphold Entry No.2719 made in favour of respondent no.2 and his father. It is further submitted that later on, upon several requests made by respondent no.2 that by way of wrong transaction, wrong entries are made, and therefore, the authority may initiate appropriate action against the said transaction. The Deputy Collector initiated the proceedings suo motu pursuant to the permission granted by the authority regarding other entries pursuant to Entry No.2719. It is further submitted that later on, upon several requests made by respondent no.2 that by way of wrong transaction, wrong entries are made, and therefore, the authority may initiate appropriate action against the said transaction. The Deputy Collector initiated the proceedings suo motu pursuant to the permission granted by the authority regarding other entries pursuant to Entry No.2719. The Deputy Collector in such inquiry has found that there is mischief and fraud played with the authority, and therefore, the Deputy Collector was pleased to quash and set aside Entry Nos.2994, 3001, 3592, 3649 and 3676 to 3679 vide order dated 02.04.1990. It is further submitted that order dated 27.03.2015 was challenged by the petitioners before this Court, and therefore, at this stage, this Court may not kindly interfere with the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar, because after hearing the parties and after going through the record, the Mamlatdar has rightly passed the order and directed the authorities to make Entry No.10761 by way of second right. In the said entry, it has been further noted that subject to outcome of Civil Appeal No.10 of 2011 pending before this Court, therefore, the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar is just and proper as only the Civil Court can decide the right and title of the property. It is further submitted that the authorities below have acted in accordance with law, and therefore, the order passed by the authorities are just and proper. It is further submitted that the prayers sought for by the petitioners are not required to be granted and the petition is required to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 7. It is further submitted that the authorities below have acted in accordance with law, and therefore, the order passed by the authorities are just and proper. It is further submitted that the prayers sought for by the petitioners are not required to be granted and the petition is required to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 7. Regard being had to the facts, evidence, submissions and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the Mamlatdar has passed an impugned order dated 27.03.2015 passed in RTS/Entry No.10761/C.No.8/2015 is without considering the observation/finding effect of the order passed by this Court dated 25.03.2013 in Special Civil Application No.17502 of 2012 relevant Paragraph No.18, wherein the effect of unconditional withdrawal of Regular Civil Suit No.162 of 1989 by the plaintiff qua Survey No.16/3, land in question, deletion of defendant no.5 from the said Civil Suit qua land in question Survey No.16/3, and dismissal of said suit, and to whom decree is binding etc., all those observations/findigns remained unchallenged, attained finality between the parties, further the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1013 of 2014, wherein also relevant observation in Para Nos.7, 8 and 9, it is clear that the order dated 20.03.2012 passed by the Mamlatdar at Annexure-J to this petition was already set aside by the Division Bench, Entry No.9924 is entered of that order of Mamlatdar dated 20.03.2012 is also set aside, not only that all subsequent entries posted thereafter have also been set aside by the Division Bench. 8. 8. It is also observed to be taken a note that the plaintiff having withdrawn suit unconditionally qua Survey No.16/3, land in question in 2005 below Exh.:223, and defendant no.5, whose sale was questioned in the said suit was deleted from the suit, present petitioner has purchased land in question, Survey No.16/3 by registered sale deed dated 23.02.2005, names of the petitioners entered by certified Entry No.7824 dated 27.09.2005, their names continues from 2005 all throughout in 7'12", not only that Entry No.8910 of withdraw order dated 23.02.2005 below Exh.:223 in Regular Civil Suit No.162 of 1989 also made, and still removing the names of the petitioners from the revenue record by the revenue authorities, without giving them a notice or without hearing them in violation of principles of natural justice was also impermissible; besides the aforesaid, when suit of plaintiff is dismissed and Civil Court having observed that the plaintiff has failed to prove his Civil Right, in such circumstances, entering the name of the plaintiff or any other family members in the revenue record can never arise and prima facie contrary to law and facts. 9. Under the circumstances, impugned order of Mamlatdar dated 27.03.2015 at Annexure-A to this petition is quashed and set aside, Entry No.9924 and all other subsequent entries which are already ordered to be set aside by the Division Bench are directed to be given effect and complied with, the matter is remanded to the Mamlatdar to complete the aforesaid exercise to be undertaken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the respective parties. 10. In view of the above directions and observations, the present petition stands allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.