ORDER : 1. At the joint request of both the sides, the matter was heard finally at admission stage. Heard learned advocate Mr. R.N. Jadhav for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent-State. 2. By way of filing this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs. “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector Bhavnagar in Rev/ Appeal Case No. 167 of 2013-2014 vide order dated 22.04.2015,(2) impugned order passed by the Collector-Bhavnagar in Revision bearing No. R.O./Revision Case No.49 of 2015-16, dated 09.12.2015 and (3) impugned order passed by the Additional Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Application NO. MVV/HKP/BVN/No. 62 of 2016 dated 24.08.2018 and further be pleased to direct the appropriate authority to enter the name of the petitioner as owner of the agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 201 Paiki 1m admeasureing Hector 00-76-89 along with Pot Kharaba land Hector 00-01-01, aggregately hector 00-77-90 out of which land admeasuring hector 00-38-95 of village Koliyak, Taluka Bhavnagar, District- Bhavnagar in all the relevant revenue records. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay execution, operation and implementation of the (1) impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector, Bhavnagar in Rev/ Appeal Case No. 167 of 2013-2014 vide order dated 22.04.2015,(2) impugned order passed by the Collector-Bhavnagar in Revision bearing No. R.O./Revision Case No.49 of 2015-16, dated 09.12.2015 and (3) impugned order passed by the Additional Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Application NO. MVV/HKP/BVN/No. 62 of 2016 dated 24.08.2018 and further be pleased to direct the appropriate authority to enter the name of the petitioner as owner of the agricultural land bearing Revneue Survey No. 201 Paiki 1m admeasureing Hector 00-76-89 along with Pot Kharaba land Hector 00-01-01, aggregately hector 00-77-90 out of which land admeasuring hector 00-38-95 of village Koliyak, Taluka Bhavnagar, District- Bhavnagar in all the relevant revenue records. (D) Such other and further relief/s as may be deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. (D) Such other and further relief/s as may be deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. The present petitioner has challenged the order passed by the revenue authority for rejecting the mutation of the entry number on the basis of the registered sale deed of the suit land in question. It is the say of the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased the land bearing revenue survey no. 201 Paiki 1, admeasuring Hector 00-76-89 along with Pot Kharaba land Hector 00-01-01, aggregately hector 00-38-98 of village Koliyak, Taluka Bhavanagar, District: Bhavnagar by way of registered sale deed No. 80 dated 10.01.2011, from the owners of the land namely (1) Ravjibhai Kanjibhai,(2) Divaliben Kanjibhai, (3) Amrutaben Kanjibhai, (4) Laxmiben Kanjibhai, (5) Bhavnaben Kanjibhai, (6) Khodabhai Kanjibhai. It is further contended that the Laxmiben Bachubhai has executed the registered sale deed no. 1558 in favour of Savjibhai Jadavbhai Dabhi on 15.05.1987, in respect of survey no. 195, wherein it was stated that by way of amicable settlement between the heirs, pursuant to that survey no. 195 was given as part of share of the properties in favour of Laxmiben Bachubhai and pursuant to that revenue entry no. 810 was mutated in the revenue record on 13.01.1988. 3.1 It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter the another sale deed no. 3951 was executed by Baluben widow of deceased Jeevabhai and 11 others with respect to survey no. 201 admeasuring land acre 1:00 Gunthas in favour of Ravjibhai Bhayabhai and Khatabhai Jadavbhai and pursuant to revenue entry no. 1223 was mutated in the revenue record on 20.01.2001. According to the petitioner thereafter the registered sale deed no.80 was executed in favour of the present petitioner on 10.01.2011, with respect to the land in question and the revenue record was mutated bearing survey no.1627 which came to be rejected on the ground that there are 26 names in the record out of which six persons have executed the registered sale deed and other co-owners have not executed the same. It is contended that against that rejection order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector of Banaskantha vide case no. It is contended that against that rejection order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector of Banaskantha vide case no. 167 of 2013-2014, which came to be rejected on the same ground by the Deputy Collector and held that there is a breach of Fragmentation Act. It is also contended that thereafter the registered consent Deed no. 2500 which was executed in 19.10.2015 by the respondents herein. It is contended that against the order of the Deputy Collector referred herein above the petitioner has preferred Revision Application before the Collector, which also came to be rejected. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that another registered sale deed no. 464 was executed on 20.02.2016 with regard to the sale deed no. 80 in favour of the petitioner by the other respondents and against the order of the Collector he has preferred revision application before the Ld. Secretary, which has also came to be rejected on 24.08.2018. 3.3 The contention of the petitioner is that the private respondents have not challenged the transaction in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has purchased the portion of land. It is contented that the entries and other sale transaction in favour of others have also been muted in the revenue records and the entries of the present petitioner is not entered into, that there was consent sale deed by the concerned private respondents. It is also contended that there is no bar in making entry of sale deeds. It is also contented that the order of the revenue authorities are devoid of merits and needs to be set aside. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Jadhav for the petitioners referring to the aforesaid facts and has submitted that the authorities ought to have entered the name of the petitioner on the basis of the consent deed filed by the private respondents herein. He has also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel vs Kanchanben Nathubhai Patel reported in 2005(3) GLR 2233 . 5. Learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara has vehemently opposed the present petition and submitted that the private respondents needs to file appropriate affidavits in respect of the petitioner and in absence of such consent, no orders may be passed in favour of the petitioner. 5. Learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara has vehemently opposed the present petition and submitted that the private respondents needs to file appropriate affidavits in respect of the petitioner and in absence of such consent, no orders may be passed in favour of the petitioner. He has also supported the orders of the revenue authority and submitted that the authorities has not committed any error while passing such order and has prayed to dismiss the present petition. 6. In the case of Jhaverbhai(Supra), this Court has observed especially para 6, 7, 8 and 9 are as under: 6. As such the issue involved in this petition is covered by the decision of this Court in case of "Jayantilal Jethalal Soni v. State of Gujarat" dated 28.9.2004 passed in Special Civil Application No.12547/2004. The relevant observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decision at paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 are as under: "7. It appears that if a registered sale deed is executed by the holder of the land, it confers the right pertaining to the land in question in favour of the purchaser of the land and, therefore, the rights pertaining to the land in question in normal circumstances can be said to have been acquired over the land in question for which recording is required to be made in the revenue record. It is also well settled that the revenue entries are having value only for fiscal purpose and more particularly for the purpose of recovery of revenue and it neither confers any right or title over the property, nor does it take away the right or title in the property which otherwise cannot be available under the law. However, the question which arises for the consideration is if a sale deed is executed by the holder of the land which runs prima facie counter to the other statutory provisions of other enactment or is barred under the other enactment or it alters or disturbs the rights of the persons under the other enactment then, can the revenue authority shut its eyes by ignoring such flagrant violation of such law or if it is considered, what will be the proper course to be followed ? In case of "Evergreen Apartment Co-op. In case of "Evergreen Apartment Co-op. Housing Society" (supra), this Court has expressed the view that it is not open to the revenue authority exercising power under the Code to exercise power under the other enactment and to decide in respect to the breaches which are committed under the other enactment and thereby to uncertify the entry or to cancel the entry made in the revenue record. In case of "Janardan D. Patel v. State of Gujarat" (supra) at para 11, it has been observed as under: "11. If any such question arises, the matter should be referred to the authority empowered to deal with under the said other enactment. For example, the validity of a transaction on the basis of Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Tenancy Act for brief) is sought to be challenged. That question cannot be decided by revenue authorities in RTS proceedings. In such situation, the correct procedure to be followed would be to refer the matter to the authority empowered under the Tenancy Act for his decision. The necessary mutation entry may be made only after the decision of that authority under the Tenancy Act is received. It would, however, not be open to revenue authorities in RTS proceedings to decide that question." 8. Therefore, keeping in view of the aforesaid observations made by this Court in the above referred judgment, it appears that it would not be proper to hold that even if there are breaches under other enactment or such transfer is barred under the other enactment, the revenue authorities exercising power under Code could have ignored the same for the purpose of recording the mutation. At the same time, the authorities exercising power under the Code will have to exercise the jurisdiction within the limits of the statutory provisions of the Code. At the same time, the authorities exercising power under the Code will have to exercise the jurisdiction within the limits of the statutory provisions of the Code. Therefore, on reconciling of both the aspects, it appears that in a case where the transfer of a land is made by registered sale deed and if the revenue authority prima facie is of the view that such transfer is either barred under the other enactment or is resulting into a breach of other enactment or is to result into adversely affecting the rights under the other enactment and consequently sale is prohibited, then in that case, the appropriate course for the revenue authority would be to record the entry for registered sale deed with the express observations that the registered sale deed is prima facie in breach of the other enactment and simultaneously refer the matter to the competent authority under the other concerned enactment of which breach is committed and the entry should be made subject to the final decision which may be taken by the competent authority under the other concerned enactment. This Court is inclined to take such view, because the one, who may be a bonafide purchaser or one who is interested to purchase the property would normally rely upon the revenue entry for enquiring into the title and the possession of the property. If the entry is certified on the basis of registered sale deed as it is, without recording for aforesaid qualification or clarification, the resultant effect would be that it will not be made known to the either person interested or to the other party who may act upon the revenue entry that the present transaction may be in breach of the other enactment and consequently it may result into not giving correct picture of the title or possession of the property in question in accordance with law. If the entry, on the basis of the sale deed is not at all effected, with the aforesaid qualification or without aforesaid qualification, it may also conversely mislead the public at large and also to those persons who act upon the revenue record, because there will be no recording of such transactions of registered sale deed which has the effect of conferring the right on property unless it is prohibited by the relevant statute under the other enactment or unless such sale deed is declared as null and void by the competent authority or through the process known to law. Therefore, it cannot be said that the authority exercising power under the Land Revenue Code has absolutely no jurisdiction to even prima facie consider the matter as to whether the breach of the other enactment is committed or not. At the most, it can be said that the authority exercising power under the code has no power to conclude as to whether the breach of the other enactment by the impugned transfer or registered sale deed is made or not. 9. In view of the above, it cannot said that the orders passed by all the authorities on the basis that the Mamlatdar has not inquired into the aforesaid three aspects namely as to whether there is any breach of the provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation Act or the provisions of Tenancy Act, are absolutely without any basis and the orders can be maintained only to the extent that in case it is found by the Mamlatdar after remand that there are prima facie breach of the other enactment by the transfer in question, the revenue authority exercising power under the Code may refer the matter to the appropriate authority under the other enactment or may relegate the affected party to resort to appropriate proceedings under the other enactment and the entry may be considered subject to the final outcome in the proceedings under the other enactment, as observed hereinabove in earlier paragraphs." 7. Considering the rival submissions of both the sides and pursuant to the documentary evidence placed on record. It appears that there is no dispute regarding the fact of purchase of the land in question by the petitioner through the registered sale deed. Considering the rival submissions of both the sides and pursuant to the documentary evidence placed on record. It appears that there is no dispute regarding the fact of purchase of the land in question by the petitioner through the registered sale deed. It also revels from the materials on record that the other co-owners have passed consent deed in favour of the petitioner way back in the year 2016. The contention of the petitioner is that the entry in respect of the other lands, which are purchased by the other persons through registered sale deed, the entries thereof are made in the revenue records, whereas in case of the petitioner this entry has not been made, rather it is rejected by the revenue authority. It appears that the action of the revenue authority by rejecting the revenue entry entered the name of the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed and without considering the consent deed is unjust and illegal. Even under section 73 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code it is incumbent duty on the part of the revenue authority on presentation of registered document, prima facie, to post an entry in the revenue record, even if, there is some questions which needs to be checked by the other competent authorities regarding the authority of the transaction, then even in that case, it is incumbent on the part of the revenue authority to make entry in the revenue records. Upon perusal of the impugned orders challenged by the petitioner herein, it clearly transpires that where the transfer of land is made by the registered sale deed and prima facie, the revenue authority is of the view that such transfer is either barred under the other enactment or is resulting in a breach of other enactment or is to result into adversely affecting the rights under the other enactment, and consequently the sale is prohibited, then in that case, the appropriate course for the revenue authority would be to record the entry for registered sale deed that the provisions of registered sale deed is prima facie in breach of enactment and simultaneously, refer the matter to the competent authority under the other concerned enactment of which breach is committed and the entry should be made subject to the final decision which may be taken by the competent authority under the concerned enactment. If the entry, on the basis of the sale deed is not at all effected, with the aforesaid qualification or without aforesaid qualification, it may also conversely mislead the public at large and also to those persons who act upon the revenue record, because there will be no recording of such transactions of registered sale deed which has the effect of conferring the right on property unless it is prohibited by the relevant statute under the other enactment or unless such sale deed is declared as null and void by the competent authority or through the process known to law. 8. In view of the aforesaid legal propositions and the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector Bhavnagar in Rev/Appeal Case No. 167 of 2013-2014 vide order dated 22.04.2015, (2) impugned order passed by the Collector-Bhavnagar in Revision bearing No. R.O./Revision Case No.49 of 2015-16, dated 09.12.2015 and (3) impugned order passed by the Additional Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Application NO. MVV/HKP/BVN/No. 62 of 2016 dated 24.08.2018, needs to be quashed and set aside and accordingly they are hereby quashed and set aside. The revenue authority is directed to enter the name of the petitioner as owner of the agricultural land in question in all the relevant revenue records. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. No orders as to cost.