JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. By consent of the learned Advocates for respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 1. Rule. Learned A.G.P. waives service of rule for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 26-4-2017 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/VALAS/39 of 2010, order dated 24-6-2010 passed by the District Collector in R.T.S./Revision/Case No. 25 of 2009 as well as order dated 4-6-2009 passed by the Deputy Collector in R.T.S./Appeal No. 191 of 2008. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under: 2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the land situated at Survey No. 106/1+2 paiki admeasuring about 15,277 sq.mtrs. of village Umbergaon, Taluka Umbergaon, District Valsad (for short "the land in question") is owned and possessed by the petitioner-Company. Earlier, the land has been purchased by the petitioner from M/s. Harish Textile Engineers Limited by a registered sale-deed dated 1-12-1992. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Dipak Dave appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders are required to be set aside since the respondent No. 2-Rohit G. Mehta (original appellant) was the Director of the petitioner-Company along with another Director namely Nikhil Gandhi, whose name was mutated in the revenue record and Village Form No. 6 showing Entry No. 4260 at the time when the petitioner-Company purchased the aforesaid land. He has submitted that the respondent No. 2 resigned as a Director after settling all his dues on 28-2-2001, and accordingly, the same is reflected in Form No. 32 under the Companies Act showing the resignation, and thereafter, another Director i.e. Sandip Kirtibhai Gandhi was appointed and his name was inserted in the revenue record in place of respondent No. 2, and accordingly, Entry No. 8378 was entered into revenue records. 3.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for the petitioner has submitted that after all these years, after Entry No. 8378, respondent No. 2 raised an objection that Iris name is incorrectly removed though he was the signatory to the sale-deed when the said land was purchased by the Company. 3.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for the petitioner has submitted that after all these years, after Entry No. 8378, respondent No. 2 raised an objection that Iris name is incorrectly removed though he was the signatory to the sale-deed when the said land was purchased by the Company. He has submitted that respondent No. 2 filed R.T.S. Appeal No. 191 of 2008 before the Deputy Collector, Valsad and by the order dated 4-6-2009, the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed on the ground that no notice under Sec. 135-D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (for short "the Code") was issued to him before making Entry No. 8378 in the revenue record. 3.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for the petitioner has pointed out that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector was further challenged by the petitioner-Company in Revision Application being R.T.S./Revision Case No. 25 of 2009 before the District Collector, Valsad under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, which was rejected on 24-6-2010. He has submitted that thereafter the same was further carried in revision being Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/VALAS/39 of 2010, which was also rejected by the order dated 26-4-2017 by respondent No. 1. He has also submitted that in fact the entire proceedings proceeded on incorrect premise that the petitioner-Company registered as a partnership firm. He has invited the attention of this Court to the Memorandum of Association of Kasha Textiles Private Limited and submitted that the petitioner-Company is registered under the Companies Act and is not a partnership firm, and hence, respondent No. 2 was not required to be heard by issuing notice under Sec. 135-D under the Code. 4. Though, notice was served to the respondent No. 2, he has chosen not to appear before this Court. 5. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Adityasinh Jadeja has submitted that in fact the dispute is pertaining to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2, through whom the entire proceedings are generated. He has submitted that the State authorities, after considering all the relevant aspects have rightly concluded and the impugned orders may not be set aside. 6. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. He has submitted that the State authorities, after considering all the relevant aspects have rightly concluded and the impugned orders may not be set aside. 6. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. A perusal of the impugned orders reveal that the authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act and not as a partnership firm, and hence, respondent No. 2, who was the Director at the relevant time when the land in question was purchased in the name of the Company and also an entry to that effect was made in the name of Company, hence, he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing. It is pertinent to note that after the new Director was appointed in the Company, Entry No. 8378 was entered in the revenue record on 1-7-2002 and after passage of six years, respondent No. 2 approached the Deputy Collector, Valsad by filing R.T.S./Appeal No. 191 of 2008 raising an objection to the aforesaid entry. No satisfactory explanation has been tendered by respondent No. 2 for such delay. 8. Be that as it may, from the record, it is established that the petitioner-Company is registered under the Companies Act and respondent No. 2 has resigned on 1-4-1999 and a new Director namely Sandip Kirtibhai Gandhi was appointed and his name was inserted in the revenue record in place of respondent No. 2 and to that effect Entry No. 8378 was entered in the Village Form No. 6. Thus, the impugned orders suffer from absolute non-application of mind on the aforesaid aspect, and hence, the same are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. As a result, the present writ petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute.