JUDGMENT : 1. Special Civil Application No.15873/2013 and Special Civil Application No. 16086/2013 are arising out of common order dated 1st May, 2013 passed by the Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) in Revision Applications No. 19/2009 and 20/2009 filed by Anantbhai Purshottambhai Patel­ respondent no.2 in Special Civil Application No.15873/2013 and Shilpaben Kanubhai Patel – respondent no.2 in Special Civil Application No.16086/2013 respectively. 2. Brief facts involved in these petitions are that petitioner no.1 purchased the land bearing survey no. 263/2 admeasuring 1821 sq. meters out of total area of land admeasuring 2732 sq. meters of revenue survey no. 263/2 paikee situated at village Karamsad, Taluka and District Anand by registered sale deed dated 28th February, 2005 for Rs.4,67,000/­ and remaining land admeasuring 911 sq. meters of Revenue survey no.263/2 by registered sale deed dated 1st March, 2008 for Rs.2,33,500/­ from petitioner no.2 and respondent no.3 in Special Civil Application No.15873/2013 who are petitioner no.2 and respondent no.7 in Special Civil Application No.16086/2013. (2.1) Land bearing survey no. 263/2 was originally part of only one survey no. i.e. survey no. 263. Said survey number was partitioned into two survey numbers i.e. survey no. 263/1 and 263/2. Upon partition of survey no. 263, land bearing survey no. 263/1 went to the share of ancestors of Motibhai Fulabhai and Dahyabhai Fulabhai whereas survey no. 263/2 came to the share of Bhikhabhai Kishorbhai. (2.2) It is the case of the petitioners that Motibhai Fulabhai and Dahyabhai Fulabhai were never the owners of land bearing survey no. 263/2 and they had no right whatsoever to sell the said land as they were the owners of land bearing survey no. 263/1 only. (2.3) It appears that Bhikhabhai Kishorbhai who was the owner of land bearing survey no. 263/2 had mortgaged the said land in favour of Vaghjibhai Jorabhai which is reflected in entry no. 103 and was mutated on 5th December, 1921 in village form no.6 in favour of Bai Lala­ widow of Bhikhabhai Kishorbhai. Upon death of Vaghjibhai Jorabhai, the said land was inherited by his son Bhailalbhai Vaghjibhai as mortgagee of the said land. It is the case of the petitioners that Bai Lala ­ widow of Bhikhabhai Kishorbhai had sold the land bearing survey no. 263/2 to Gordhanbhai alias Renumitrabhai Prabhudas by registered sale deed dated 14th December, 1942 which was mutated by entry no.3906 in village form no.6. It is the case of the petitioners that Bai Lala ­ widow of Bhikhabhai Kishorbhai had sold the land bearing survey no. 263/2 to Gordhanbhai alias Renumitrabhai Prabhudas by registered sale deed dated 14th December, 1942 which was mutated by entry no.3906 in village form no.6. Thus Renumitrabhai Prabhudas had obtained the right to redeem the mortgage of the said land and he redeemed the said land from mortgagee on 1st May, 1943 and entry no. 5251 was mutated in revenue record to this effect in village form no.6. (2.4) It is the case of the petitioner that though Motibhai Fulabhai and Dahyabhai Fulabhai were not the owners of the land bearing survey no. 263/2, they transferred the said land to Zaverbhai Chababhai by sale deed dated 21st February, 1931 without possession. Entry no. 1908 was mutated in revenue records in the second right column in name of Zaverbhai Chababhai. It appears that thereafter, Zaverbhai Chababhai sold the land of survey no.263/2 to Chhotabhai Mathurbhai on 10th July, 1939 by registered sale deed along with land of survey no. 263/1. Entry no. 3227 was mutated in revenue records in the second right column in name of Chhotabhai Mathurbhai. This sale deed also reflects that the same was executed without possession. (2.5) It is the case of the petitioners that heir of Chhotabhai Mathurbhai i.e. Kantibhai Chhotabhai had moved an application before the Mamlatdar for getting his name entered in second right column of revenue records. On the basis of said application, entry no. 15025 was mutated in revenue record showing the name of Kantibhai in the second column of revenue records. Petitioner no.2 therefore, raised an objection against said entry no. 15025 and notice under section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (“the Code” for short) was issued and after hearing the parties and recording in detail the aforesaid facts, Additional Deputy Mamlatdar, Anand by order dated 5th December, 1974 did not certify entry no.15025. (2.6) It is the case of the petitioners that after the petitioner no.1 purchased the land of survey no.263/2, as stated here­in­above, petitioner no.1 filed an application before the Mamlatdar for removing entries no. 1908 and 3227 as petitioner no.1 was not able to get title clearance certificate and in turn due to such entries, he was not able to get loan/financial assistance though he purchased the land of survey no. 1908 and 3227 as petitioner no.1 was not able to get title clearance certificate and in turn due to such entries, he was not able to get loan/financial assistance though he purchased the land of survey no. 263/2 by registered sale deed in the year 2005. However, the said application was ordered to be filed by Mamlatdar, Anand, vide order dated 28th May, 2005. (2.7) It appears that petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 28th May, 2005 passed by the Mamlatdar, Anand preferred Appeal No. 77/2005 before the Deputy Collector, Anand. Deputy Collector, Anand after hearing the petitioners as well as respondent no.2 in Special Civil Application No.15873/2013 who was stated to be an administrator of Kantibhai Chhotabhai and was also son of Pursottambhai who is brother of original owner Dahyabhai Fulabhai who died intestate, passed order dated 28th January, 2008 and ordered to remove the effect of entries no. 1908 and 3227 from the revenue records. (2.8) Respondent No.2 therefore, along with Shilpaben Kanubhai Patel­respondent no.2 in Special Civil Application No.16086/2013, preferred Revision Application No. 33/2008 before the Collector, Anand. Respondent no.2 also filed Civil Suit No.233/2008 claiming to be the owner of land bearing survey no. 263/2. (2.9) The Collector, Anand by order dated 29th June, 2009 rejected the Revision Application No.33/2008 as the Civil Suit No.233/2008 was pending at the relevant time with an observation that the parties would abide by the result of the Civil Suit. (2.10) Respondent No.2 also preferred Revision Application No.17/2009 before the Special Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) (“SSRD” for short) against the petitioners challenging the order dated 31st January, 1978 passed by the Deputy Collector, Anand in Appeal No.35/1975, whereby order dated 5th December, 1974 passed by Additional Deputy Mamlatdar, Anand, not certifying entry no.15025 was confirmed. Such Revision Application No. 17/2009 was dismissed by SSRD. (2.11) Respondent No.2 – Anantbhai Purshottambhai Patel in Special Civil Application No.15873/2013 filed Revision Application No.19/2009 challenging the order dated 29th June, 2009 passed by the Collector in Revision Application No.33/2008 before the SSRD. Respondent No.2 Shilpaben Kanubhai Patel in Special Civil Application No.16086/2013 also filed Revision Application No.20/2009 challenging the same order. (2.12) By common order dated 1st May, 2013, SSRD reversed the order passed by the Collector and the Deputy Collector and restored the revenue entries no. 1908 and 3227 on revenue record. Respondent No.2 Shilpaben Kanubhai Patel in Special Civil Application No.16086/2013 also filed Revision Application No.20/2009 challenging the same order. (2.12) By common order dated 1st May, 2013, SSRD reversed the order passed by the Collector and the Deputy Collector and restored the revenue entries no. 1908 and 3227 on revenue record. (2.13) The petitioners therefore, preferred Special Civil Applications No.15873/2013 and 16086/2013 challenging the aforesaid common order dated 1st May, 2013 passed by SSRD. (2.14) It appears that Regular Civil Suit No.233/2008 filed by respondent no.2 Anantbhai Purshottambhai Patel in Special Civil Application No.15873/2013 is dismissed by order dated 23rd December, 2017 by 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anand for non prosecution as respondent no.2 did not remain present before the Court. (2.15) This Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.J. Thaker, as he was then) by order dated 23rd June, 2015 was pleased to issue rule in the aforesaid two petitions. (2.16) During the pendency of the aforesaid two petitions, Collector, Anand vide order dated 16th March, 2019 rejected the application made by the petitioners for grant of N.A. permission with respect to the land of ownership of petitioner no.1 bearing revenue survey no. 263/2 holding that SSRD has passed order for restoration of entries no. 1908 and 3227 and if such order is implemented, purchasers of the land way back in 1939 would be in possession and hence the application of the petitioners for NA permission cannot be granted. (2.17) The petitioners therefore, challenged the said order dated 16th March, 2019 by preferring Special Civil Application No.7266/2019. By order dated 12th April, 2019, this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.J. Desai), issued notice for final disposal and also passed order to hear Special Civil Application No.7266/2019 with Special Civil Application No.15873/2013 and Special Civil Application No.16086/2013. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, all the three petitions have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. H.M. Parikh for learned advocate Mr. Rashesh Parikh for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar for respondent no.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the respondents­State authorities. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. H.M. Parikh for the petitioners submitted that land of survey no. 4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. H.M. Parikh for learned advocate Mr. Rashesh Parikh for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar for respondent no.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the respondents­State authorities. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. H.M. Parikh for the petitioners submitted that land of survey no. 263/2 was never in possession or ownership of either Motibhai Fulabhai or his brother Dahyabhai Fulabhai as they were allotted land of survey no. 263/1 upon partition. Land of survey no. 263/2 came to the share of Bhikhabhai Kishorbhai and therefore, Motibhai Fulabhai and Dahyabhai Fulabhai could not have sold the land of survey no. 263/2 without possession at any point of time and therefore, entries no. 1908 and 3227 mutated in the second right column of revenue records could not have any effect and, therefore, the Deputy Collector by order date 28th January, 2008 has rightly removed the effect of the said entries. He further submitted that in view of the facts on record, entries no. 1908 and 3227 have not effect in substance. It is submitted that the findings given by SSRD in the impugned order that the application is filed by the petitioners after 70 years is of no consequence as such revenue entries would have no effect with regard to possession. It was therefore, submitted that petitioner no.1 has never filed an application or appeal against mutation entry but he has made an application only to delete revenue entries no. 1908 and 3227 as the said entries have become infructuous after lapse of time as said entries were mutated without any basis as the vendor had no right to sale the land in question i.e. Survey no. 263/2. (5.1) It was further submitted that the entries in question were in second right column which does not decide any first right over the property and hence, in view of the fact that land of survey no. 263/2 was not of ownership of Motibhai Fulabhai and Dahyabhai Fulabhai at any point of time, said entries were of no consequence. 263/2. (5.1) It was further submitted that the entries in question were in second right column which does not decide any first right over the property and hence, in view of the fact that land of survey no. 263/2 was not of ownership of Motibhai Fulabhai and Dahyabhai Fulabhai at any point of time, said entries were of no consequence. It was also submitted that the Civil Suit filed by respondent no.2 to establish his right over the land in question and the Collector while confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector has rightly come to the conclusion that the parties would be bound by the order that may be passed by the competent Civil Court in the civil suit pending before the parties. However, such civil suit was dismissed for non prosecution and there is nothing on record to show that any further proceedings are pending. (5.2) Learned advocate for the petitioners also submitted that since 1942, neither respondent no.2 nor his predecessors in title were in possession of the land in question whereas on the other hand, the predecessors in tile of the petitioners and the petitioners were in possession of the land in question since 1942 and the petitioners and their predecessors in title were holding the land in question as owners as well as were having possession for more than 72 years. It was therefore, submitted that respondent no.2 has no right or title over the land in question. (5.3) It was also submitted that respondent no.2 also challenged the order of the Deputy Collector passed in Appeal No.35/1975 by preferring Revision Application no. 17/2009 which was rejected by the SSRD confirming the rejection of mutation entry no. 15025. It was therefore, submitted that the Deputy Collector and the Collector has rightly passed the orders removing the effect of entries no. 1908 and 3227 from the revenue records. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar appearing for respondent no.2 submitted that the application filed by the petitioners for deleting entries no. 1908 and 3227 after 70 years is not tenable in law. He further submitted that there is no concept of removing of effect of any revenue entry from the revenue records. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar appearing for respondent no.2 submitted that the application filed by the petitioners for deleting entries no. 1908 and 3227 after 70 years is not tenable in law. He further submitted that there is no concept of removing of effect of any revenue entry from the revenue records. He submitted that the sale deeds executed way back in 1931 and 1939 are not reversed and without challenge to the sale deed, no challenge could be made to the mutation entries passed on the basis of such registered sale deed. It was therefore, submitted that entry no. 1908 passed in 1931 and entry no. 3227 passed in 1938 in the revenue records has achieved finality and cannot be challenged in any manner. (6.1) It was submitted that as per the settled legal position, the revenue entry can be challenged within the reasonable time i.e. one year or maximum three years, once an entry holds the filed for fiscal purpose. It was also pointed out that application filed by the petitioners before the Mamlatdar for deletion of entries no. 1908 and 3227 is also not produced on record and therefore, it is not possible to know as to what was the prayer made by the petitioners before the Mamlatdar. It was therefore, submitted that SSRD has rightly reversed the orders passed by the Deputy Collector as well as Collector on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits, in view of the fact that entries no. 1908 and 3227 passed in the year 1931 and 1939 respectively, could not have been reversed nor their effect could have been removed as such entries have achieved finality on the basis of sale deeds executed in the respective years. It was therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 1st May, 2013 passed by SSRD is in accordance with law and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the advocates for both the sides, it appears that entry no. 1908 dated 8.3.1931 and entry no. 3227 dated 12.8.1939 are passed on the basis of registered sale deeds and, therefore, such revenue entries cannot be reversed or removed or effect thereof cannot be removed after considerable time of more than 60 to 70 years. 1908 dated 8.3.1931 and entry no. 3227 dated 12.8.1939 are passed on the basis of registered sale deeds and, therefore, such revenue entries cannot be reversed or removed or effect thereof cannot be removed after considerable time of more than 60 to 70 years. SSRD in the impugned order has relied upon the following decisions : (1) Judgment dated 21.1.1969 rendered in Civil Appeal No.723/1966 of the Hon'ble Apex Court. (2) Judgment dated 23.11.1999 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.227/1999 of this Court. (3) Judgment dated 3.8.2012 rendered in Special Civil Application No.10754/2010 of this Court. 8. SSRD after considering the above settled legal position passed the impugned order holding that certified entry cannot be removed after more than 70 to 73 years without any justification for delay caused in such orders being passed. 9. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the impugned order dated 1st May, 2013 passed by SSRD cannot be said to be erroneous and does not call for any interference while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. However, considering the facts stated here­in­above and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners and the predecessors in tile of the land in question are in possession of the land in question for more than 70 years and the fact that attempt made by Kantibhai Chhotabhai ­ legal heir of Chhotabhai Mathurbhai to enter his name in the land bearing revenue survey no. 263/2 has failed, entry no. 15025 was not certified which was confirmed by the Deputy Collector in Appeal No. 35/1975 as well as SSRD in Revision Application No.17/2009 filed by respondent no.2, it is established on record that Chhotabhai Mathurbhai or his legal heirs were not considered to be in possession or the owner of the land in question of survey no. 263/2 by revenue authorities. Therefore, entries no. 1908 and 3227 though may continue on revenue record, cannot jeopardize the right of the petitioners to be in possession as well as owner of the land in question as petitioner no.1 has purchased the land in question of survey no. 263/2 by registered sale deed which is not reversed by any competent Civil Court till date. Therefore, entries no. 1908 and 3227 though may continue on revenue record, cannot jeopardize the right of the petitioners to be in possession as well as owner of the land in question as petitioner no.1 has purchased the land in question of survey no. 263/2 by registered sale deed which is not reversed by any competent Civil Court till date. Moreover, Regular Civil Suit No.233/2008 filed by respondent no.2 is also dismissed for non prosecution and there is nothing on record to show that any further proceedings are pending before any Court. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Collector could not have rejected the application of the petitioner no.1 by order dated 16th March, 2019 for granting NA permission under the provisions of the Code relying upon the impugned judgment dated 1st May, 2013 passed by SSRD. It is therefore, required to be noted that by restoration of entries no. 1908 and 3227, name of the petitioner no.1 cannot be deleted from the revenue records and title of the petitioner is clear and marketable as the petitioner no.1 is the owner of the land in question by virtue of registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner no.1 and revenue entry to that effect has been mutated in revenue records which has achieved finality. Revenue entries no.1908 and 3227 are entries in the second right column and, therefore, such entries cannot override the title of the petitioner no.1 in any manner. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts, order dated 16th March, 2019 is hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated to Collector, Anand to consider the application filed by petitioner no.1 for NA permission of the land in question of survey no. 263/2 without taking into consideration the effect of entries no.1908 and 3227 as the title and possession of petitioner no.1 qua the land in question of survey no. 263/2 is clear and marketable in view of the aforesaid undisputed facts. 13. In view of aforesaid observations and findings, the Collector, Anand is directed to consider the application of the petitioners under section 65 of the Code in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 14. All the three petitions are accordingly disposed of. Special Civil Application nos. 13. In view of aforesaid observations and findings, the Collector, Anand is directed to consider the application of the petitioners under section 65 of the Code in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 14. All the three petitions are accordingly disposed of. Special Civil Application nos. 15873 of 2013 and 16086 of 2013 are therefore dismissed and Special Civil Application No. 7266 of 2019 is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.