JUDGMENT VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. The appellant original petitioner preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against oral order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11649 of 2017, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition by imposing cost of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The facts of the present case in nutshell are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and occupier of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.420 admeasuring 107-37-00 Hector-Are-Sq. Meters situated at Village Khojbal, Taluka Vagra, District Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question'). The said land in question is inherited by the petitioner through succession. It is stated that originally, the said land was described as Survey No.12 before consolidation and, thereafter, it was numbered as Survey No.44. After resurvey, it has been numbered as Survey No.420. The land in question was running in the name of Manecksha Dhunjisha since 1939-40. He was the owner of the said land. Manecksha Dhunjisha had three brothers, namely, (1) Jamshedji Dhunjisha, (2) Khe khsharu Dhunjisha and (3) Rustamji Dhunjisha. One of the brothers of Manecksha Dhunjisha had filed Regular Civil Suit No.158 of 1944 for partition. During the pendency of the said suit, compromise was arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, decree had been drawn. However, the said partition was never effected in metes and bounds and, therefore, the land in question remained in the name of Manecksha. 2.2 It is stated that so-called Power of Attorney holder of Rustamji Dhunjisha sold the land in question to respondent Nos.1 and 2 by registered Sale Deed on 14.07.1956, though he had no right to execute the said Sale Deed. Mutation Entry No.992 came to be effected. However, the same was cancelled on 22.10.1956 on the ground that the sale transaction was in violation of provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, ("the Fragmentation Act" for short) and also on the ground that respondent No.1 is non-agriculturist. Against the said order, Revision Application was preferred before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD). The SSRD remanded the matter to the Prant Officer, Bharuch. It is further stated that Manecksha was not having any legal heir and, therefore, he executed a Will in favour of his brother Rustamji Dhunjisha on 28.10.1956. Against the said order, Revision Application was preferred before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD). The SSRD remanded the matter to the Prant Officer, Bharuch. It is further stated that Manecksha was not having any legal heir and, therefore, he executed a Will in favour of his brother Rustamji Dhunjisha on 28.10.1956. Manecksha had expired on 26.01.1958 and, therefore, Rustamji Dhunjisha became the owner of the land in question by virtue of the said Will. Thereafter, Rustamji Dhunjisha had also expired on 27.08.1959. However, Entry No.1107 dated 07.08.1960 came to be mutated in the name of Rustamji Dhunjisha and the land in question was inherited by his son, Dhunjisha Rustamji and, therefore, Succession Entry No.1108 came to be mutated into the revenue record. 2.3 It is further stated that the Prant Officer, Bharuch, passed an order on 13.07.1971 in remand proceedings and, thereby, granted post facto sanction to the sale transaction dated 14.07.1956. Entry No.1641 dated 03.08.1971 came to be mutated in the revenue record. Dhunjisha Rustamji, who was holding the land in question since the year 1960, had expired on 22.09.1993. Therefore, the name of his son, Malcom Dhunjisha Munsaf - the petitioner herein, was entered in the revenue record vide Entry No.2932 dated 20.10.2010 by way of succession. 2.4 It is stated that respondent No.1 preferred Special Civil Application No.5561 of 2014 before this Court seeking correction in the measurement of the land in question and also prayed that the Collector be directed to decide the representation made by present respondent Nos.1 and 2. This Court directed the Collector to decide the representation of respondent Nos.1 and 2 within stipulated time limit. The Collector, Bharuch, passed an order dated 04.08.2014 whereby the Collector had declared that the disputed Entry No.1641 dated 03.08.1971 had been duly certified by the Prant Officer in accordance with the rules. Against the said order passed by the Collector, the petitioner preferred Revision Application before the SSRD. The SSRD, by an order dated 15.04.2017, rejected the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner preferred the captioned petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by an impugned order, dismissed the petition with cost of Rs. 50,000/- and, therefore, the appellant original petitioner has preferred the present appeal. 3. The SSRD, by an order dated 15.04.2017, rejected the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner preferred the captioned petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by an impugned order, dismissed the petition with cost of Rs. 50,000/- and, therefore, the appellant original petitioner has preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard Mr.Nikhil S. Kariel, learned advocate for the appellant original petitioner, Mr.Shalin N. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Maulik R. Shah, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos.3 to 6. 4. Mr.Nikhil S. Kariel, learned advocate for the appellant, has assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the petitioner is a legal owner and occupier of the land in question and the sale transaction dated 14.07.1956 is nullity and void-ab-initio and, therefore, the entry made on the basis of the sale transaction dated 14.07.1956 is required to be set aside. In spite of that, the Prant Officer has certified the same by an order dated 13.07.1971 in the remand proceedings. After a period of more than 45 years, on the basis of the direction given by this Court in Special Civil Application No.5561 of 2014, the Collector confirmed the order passed by the Prant Officer and, that too, while deciding the representation made by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Collector could not have passed such an order on the representation of the private respondents in absence of any revision or appeal. 4.1 Mr.Kariel, learned advocate, would further contend that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that the Sale Deed dated 14.07.1956 executed through the so-called Power of Attorney holder of Rustamji Dhunjisha was fraudulent. In fact, in the year 1956, Manecksha was the owner and occupier of the land in question as the decree of partition passed by the Civil Court was not executed. The learned Single Judge has also failed to consider the fact that the order dated 13.07.1971 passed by the Prant officer granting post facto sanction to the sale transaction dated 14.07.1956 is also fraudulent. The order passed by the Prant Officer in the year 1971 is not available. In fact, the private respondents want to snatch away the land of 91 Acres on the basis of the so-called sale transaction, which is nullity. The order passed by the Prant Officer in the year 1971 is not available. In fact, the private respondents want to snatch away the land of 91 Acres on the basis of the so-called sale transaction, which is nullity. Thus, the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed and set aside the orders passed by the respondent authorities. 4.2 Mr.Kariel, learned advocate, further submits that the private respondents were not agriculturists at the relevant point of time and, therefore, they could not have purchased the land in question. At the relevant point of time, there was a provision that the agriculturist cannot purchase the land beyond 8 Kms. Therefore, even if it is presumed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were having lands at Village Detral, Taluka & District Bharuch, then they could not have purchased the land beyond 8 Kms., as in the present case, Village Khojbal is situated at Taluka Vagra and the land in question is approximately 25 Kms. away from Village Khojbal. 4.3 Mr.Kariel, learned advocate, lastly submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly observed that the petition filed by the petitioner is abuse of process of law and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition with Rs. 50,000/- cost. It is urged that the order of imposition of cost of Rs. 50,000/- passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, has supported the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge and mainly contended that the petitioner has not challenged the registered Sale Deed which was executed in the year 1956. Preliminary decree drawn by the competent Civil Court has attained finality as the same was not challenged before higher forum and, therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the decree is not in metes and bounds and, therefore, no effect could have been given to the compromise which was arrived at between the heirs of late Dhunjisha. It is further submitted that one parcel of land of Survey No.44/1 was not reflected in the revenue record and, therefore, the private respondents were constrained to approach this Court by filing the petition, in which this Court directed the Collector to decide the representation filed by the private respondents. It is further submitted that one parcel of land of Survey No.44/1 was not reflected in the revenue record and, therefore, the private respondents were constrained to approach this Court by filing the petition, in which this Court directed the Collector to decide the representation filed by the private respondents. Learned Senior Counsel, at this stage, pointed out that neither the grandfather of the petitioner nor his father, at any point of time, challenged the sale transaction. It is further pointed out that out of total land, 139 Acres 32 Gunthas land come to the share of Rustamji by virtue of preliminary decree drawn in Regular Civil Suit No.158 of 1944 and because of the fact that Survey No.44/1 was missing in the revenue record, proceedings were filed. He, therefore, urged that when the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the petition, this Court may not entertain this appeal. 6. Mr.D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.3 to 6, has also submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the respondent authorities have not committed any error, which requires any interference in the present appeal and, therefore, this appeal be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged that the registered Sale Deed has been executed on 14.07.1956 in favour of the private respondents. The entry was mutated in the revenue record. However, the Prant Officer, Vagra, cancelled the said entry on the ground that the Sale Deed executed in favour of the private respondents was in violation of the Fragmentation Act as well as Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("Tenancy Act" for short). The private respondents approached the appellate forum, which had remanded the matter back to the Prant Officer. The Prant Officer, in the remand proceedings, passed an order on 13.07.1971 in favour of the private respondents and, therefore, Entry No.1641 came to be mutated on 03.08.1971. It is required to be noted that in the Village Form No.8A, total parcel of land admeasuring 91 Acres 17 Gunthas as mutated in Entry No.1641, did not reflect and instead of that, land admeasuring 23 Acres and 27 Gunthas is reflected in the revenue record. It is required to be noted that in the Village Form No.8A, total parcel of land admeasuring 91 Acres 17 Gunthas as mutated in Entry No.1641, did not reflect and instead of that, land admeasuring 23 Acres and 27 Gunthas is reflected in the revenue record. It is further required to be noted that the registered Sale Deed, which was executed in the year 1956, was in respect of land admeasuring 91 Acres 17 Gunthas and the said Sale Deed is not challenged till date. The private respondents, therefore, filed representation in the year 2013 to the Collector pointing out the said discrepancies. However, no decision was taken by the Collector and, therefore, the private respondents filed Special Civil Application No.5561 of 2014 before this Court. This Court directed the Collector to decide the said representation and, therefore, the Collector passed an order on 04.08.2014 and thereby confirmed Mutation Entry No.1641. The Collector also directed the District Inspector of Land Records (DILR) to measure the land and accordingly, to give effect to the said entry. The SSRD also confirmed the order passed by the Collector while dismissing the Revision Application filed by the petitioner. 8. From the facts emerged from the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not challenged the Sale Deed dated 14.07.1956. The petitioner has alleged that the said sale transaction is fraudulent transaction and is also in violation of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, as the private respondents were not agriculturists at the relevant point of time. However, the said aspects cannot be gone into in the proceedings challenging the entry made in the revenue record. The petitioner has never challenged the Sale Deed as observed hereinabove before any competent Civil Court, nor the petitioner has initiated any proceedings before the competent forum alleging violation of the provisions of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, such aspects cannot be gone into. 9. It is required to be noted that the disputed Entry No.1641 dated 03.08.1971 is mutated on the basis of the order dated 13.07.1971 passed by the Prant Officer in remand proceedings. 9. It is required to be noted that the disputed Entry No.1641 dated 03.08.1971 is mutated on the basis of the order dated 13.07.1971 passed by the Prant Officer in remand proceedings. Further, order dated 13.07.1971 is forming part of annexures of Special Civil Application No.12308 of 2014 and the said order was produced before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to contend that the order passed by the Prant Officer is not available. 10. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, it is revealed that the grandfather of the petitioner has sold the land in question through Power of Attorney by a registered Sale Deed and the grandfather or the father of the petitioner has never challenged the said sale transaction during their lifetime. The petitioner, who is alleging fraud or violation of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, has never challenged the sale transaction by filing Civil Suit, nor he has initiated any tenancy proceedings before the competent forum and, therefore, he cannot be said to be an 'aggrieved person'. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Navuji Lalji Vaghela and Others vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 4 GLR 3636. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the petition, which requires any interference in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.