ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1, 9, 10 and 11 and Mr. Dev D. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent No.2. Rest of the respondents have not entered their appearance despite service of notice of Rule. 2. Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP tenders Affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondent No.11, which is taken on record. 3. Following substantive prayers are made in this petition : “(A) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.01.2016(posted on 06.02.2016) (Annexure-L) passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.121/2014 and be further pleased to quash and set-aside the order passed by the District Collector, Anand in RTS/RA/143/2012 dated 11.12.2013 and thereby be pleased to restore revenue entry No.9659 mutated on the basis of the registered sale deed with respect to land bearing Survey No.384/p admeasuring Hectare 0-57-67 sq.mtrs. Of village Petlad. (B) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 29.01.2016 (posted on 06.02.2016) (Annexure-L) passed bin Revision Application No.121/2014 by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) and be further pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 11.12.2013 (posted on 13.12.2013) passed by the District Collector, Anand cancelling entry No.9659 mutated on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 30.10.2002 of land bearing Survey No.384/p admeasuring Hectare 0-57-67 sq.mtrs. of village Petlad. (C) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the revenue authorities to maintain statusquo qua revenue entry No.9659 mutated on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 30.10.2002 of land bearing Survey No.384/p admeasuring Hectare 0-57-67 sq.mtrs. of village Petlad purchased by the petitioners.” 4. One Mr. Ratanbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel inherent land bearing Survey No.384 Paiki admeasuring Hectare 1–14–32 sq.mtrs with new and restricted tenure from his father Ranchhodbhai, who was holding the subject land since 1932-33. The said Ratanbhai also paid the sale price of the land whereupon Revenue Entry No.2637 dated 22.11.1966 was mutated in his favour in the Revenue record. One Mr. Ratanbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel inherent land bearing Survey No.384 Paiki admeasuring Hectare 1–14–32 sq.mtrs with new and restricted tenure from his father Ranchhodbhai, who was holding the subject land since 1932-33. The said Ratanbhai also paid the sale price of the land whereupon Revenue Entry No.2637 dated 22.11.1966 was mutated in his favour in the Revenue record. Though Ratanbhai had paid the price of the land in the village Form No.7/12, the subject land was shown as subject to restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. Ratanbhai, therefore made an application under Section 87(A) of the Tenancy Act before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad for removing the restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. The Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad on the basis of evidence on record and the provisions of law by order dated 30.08.2002 removed the restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and declared the subject land as old tenure land. The said Ratanbhai Patel, thereafter, executed one sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 7 on 30.10.2002 in respect of the subject land, revenue entry No.9659 came to be mutated in revenue record on the basis of the sale deed. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 executed a registered sale deed dated 12.04.2010 in favour of Parshottambhai Ambalal and Jamnadas Morarjibhai Pabari who have since expired and the petitioners are their legal heirs and representative. Accordingly, revenue entry No.11957 was mutated in the revenue record in favour of the Parshottambhai Ambalal and Jamnadas Morarjibhai Pabari. 5. Respondent No.2 Nitesh Ratanlal Patel who happens to be the son of Ratanlal Patel challenged the revenue entry No.9659 mutated on the basis of Registered Sale Deed dated 30.10.2002 by filing RTS Appeal No.214 of 2011 before the Deputy Collector, Petlad after around 7 years of the mutation of entry No.9659. The appeal came to dismissed by order dated 25.05.2012 and revenue entry No.9659 was confirmed. The respondent No.2 being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Petlad, preferred Revision Application No.143 of 2012 before the District Collector, Anand under Rule 108(6) of the Land Revenue Rules. The Collector, Anand by order dated 11.12.2013 quashed the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Petlad and cancelled the Entry No.9659. 6. The respondent No.2 being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Petlad, preferred Revision Application No.143 of 2012 before the District Collector, Anand under Rule 108(6) of the Land Revenue Rules. The Collector, Anand by order dated 11.12.2013 quashed the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Petlad and cancelled the Entry No.9659. 6. In the interregnum period, the subject land was purchased by the Parshottambhai Ambalal and Jamnadas Morarjibhai Pabari who happens to be ancestral and therefore the petitioners preferred the Revision Application No.121 of 2014 before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) to challenge the order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Collector, Anand. The appeal preferred by the petitioners came to be dismissed by the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals). Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petition for the relief (Supra). 7. It needs to be noted that the dispute/issue between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 was amicably settled. Therefore, the respondent No.2 had passed a pursis before the Collector, Anand as well as SSRD declaring that he has no objection if the entries are certified in favour of the petitioners. However, the authorities below for the reasons recorded in the respective orders ignored the pursis passed by the respondent No.2 and cancelled the entries. The respondent No.2 has also filed an affidavit in the present proceedings wherein he has declared in paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 which reads as under: “4. I say and submit that due to some misunderstanding I preferred RTS Appeal No. 214/2011 in the court of Dy. Collector against the certification of Entry No. 9659. I say and submit that Dy. Collector was pleased to dismiss the said Appeal vide order dated 25.05.2012. 5. I say and submit that I have preferred RTS Revision No.143/2012 before the Collector, Anand. I further say and submit that pending the proceedings before the District Collector, I filed a purshis praying that I would not like to proceed with Revision Application No.143/2012 and that I am unconditionally withdrawing said Revision Application. I say and submit that I have preferred said purshis considering the fact that the said land was sold by my father after obtaining the consideration and therefore it would not be proper to raise objection once consideration has been received by my father with regard the said land. I say and submit that I have preferred said purshis considering the fact that the said land was sold by my father after obtaining the consideration and therefore it would not be proper to raise objection once consideration has been received by my father with regard the said land. I say and submit that without considering the said purshis, Ld. Collector vide order dated 11.12.2013 confirmed order of Dy. Collector and therefore present Petitioners have preferred Revision Application No. 121/2014 before the Ld. SSRD. I say and submit that before the Ld. SSRD, I again pointed out that the difference between the parties is settled and that I have already preferred purshis for the withdrawal of the Revision Application against the Revenue Entry No. 9659. I say and submit that the Ld. SSRD without considering the said aspect and instead of allowing the revision application, dismissed revision application vide order dated 29.01.2016 (published on 06.02.2016) and therefore Petitioners have preferred present petition. I say and submit that grievance has been redressed between the parties and therefore I have preferred purshis to withdraw Revision Application No. 143/2012 and that I have unconditionally accepted the order passed by the Deputy Collector in RTS Appeal 214/2011. I say and submit I have no objection if the present petition is allowed and order of Ld. SSRD dated 29.01.2016 (published on 06.02.2016) passed in Revision Application No. 121/2014. I say and submit that I no objection if the Revenue Entry No.9659 is restored in the revenue recorded of the Survey No. 384/p. I say and submit that I have accepted order passed by the Deputy Collector in Revision Application No. 214/2011 unconditionally and therefore I present petition may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice.” 8. Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that in view of the affidavit of respondent No.2, the orders impugned in this petition may be set aside and the entries may be restored on payment of premium and the restrictions under Section 43 of the Act may be removed. He, further submits under instructions that the petitioners shall deposit amount of premium within a period of four weeks after the same is determine by the authorities. 9. Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP has submits that as such he has no objection if the petition is disposed of as submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners. He, further submits under instructions that the petitioners shall deposit amount of premium within a period of four weeks after the same is determine by the authorities. 9. Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP has submits that as such he has no objection if the petition is disposed of as submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners. However, he has laid emphasis on paragraph No.14 of the Affidavit-in-reply and Clause No.2 of the Circulation dated 17.03.2017 of the Revenue Department. The paragraph No.14 of the Affidavit-in-reply is as under : “14. It is stated and submitted that as per Clause No.2 of the aforesaid circular, it is prescribed that if the restrictions as stated under the Section 43 of the Act qua any particular land are removed by any competent authority and are restored by the higher authority upon an appeal thereafter and if any sale takes place in the interregnum period, then such a sale of restricted tenure land can be regularized by paying the prevailing amount of premium to the authorities. It is submitted that the land in question can be regularized if the Petitioners are ready and willing to pay the amount of premium and upon such payment of premium, sale can be regularized in favour of the Petitioners only qua the removal of restrictions as prescribed under Section 43 of the Act. It is to be noted that the aforesaid regularization would bot validate or otherwise regularize the sale of land in question in favour of the Petitioners, if the same are in contravention of the other provisions of the Act or applicable policy framed by the State Government.” 10. It is thus clear from the paragraph No.14 of the Affidavit-in-reply and Clause No.2 of the Circular dated 17.03.2017 that in case of bonafide purchaser the transaction can be regularized on payment of premium. It also emerges from the order passed by the Collector Anand as well as Special Secretary Revenue Department that during the pendency of proceedings before the Collector Anand, the parties have resolved their dispute and respondent No.2 has declared his no objection if the entries was certified in favour of the petitioners. The Special Secretary Revenue Department has also recorded the same in his order as well. Considering this oral evidence and the fact that the circular dated 17.03.2017 also provides for regularization of the transaction on payment of premium. The Special Secretary Revenue Department has also recorded the same in his order as well. Considering this oral evidence and the fact that the circular dated 17.03.2017 also provides for regularization of the transaction on payment of premium. It is otherwise also would have to be paid in view of the order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the Deputy Collector (land Reform and Appeal) in Tenancy Appeal No.36 of 2011 where uner while remanding the matter he has directed the Mamlatdar Petlad to restore the restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. 11. I am, therefore, of the view that the petition requires to be allowed and the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.121 of 2014 and the order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Collector, Anand in RTS/RA/143/2012 are required to be quashed and seta side and accordingly they are quashed and seta side. Consequently, the revenue entry No.9659 is restored which was mutated on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 30.10.2002 with respect to land bearing Survey No.384/p admeasuring Hectare 0-57-67 sq.mtrs. of village Petlad. The petition accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute.