JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. By filing present petition, the petitioner has mainly prayed for the following relief: “27................ [B] Your lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 23.10.2020 passed by the Mamlatdar, Mahuva in RRT-TAKARARI-BHAVAN-6-2020 cancelling entry no. 1618 and further be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to confirm the Entry No. 1618.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has purchased the land in question i.e. land bearing Survey No. 45 (paiki), 49 (paiki) and 50 (paiki) total admeasuring about 101275 sq. mtrs. of Mouje Village Umaniyavadar, Taluka Mahuva, District-Bhavnagar, through auction held before this Court from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vide order dated 27.8.2010 passed in Company Application No. 192 of 2010 in Company Petition No. 18 of 1998 for sale consideration of Rs. 10,85,00,000/-. It is contended that pursuant to that order the bank had also issued sale certificate dated 28.9.2010 wherein it was specifically stated that, “the sale of the scheduled property was made free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditor.” It is contended that the petitioner had filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 201 of 2010 in Company Application No. 192 of 2010 for necessary relief to the extent that the petitioner is not liable for any preferential payment as per Section 530 of the Companies Act or otherwise. It is contended that this Court while disposing of the aforesaid application has observed that the auction purchaser is not liable for any pre-liquidation dues of the company in liquidation and the Official Liquidator is required to settle the claim pertaining to pre-liquidation period. It is contended that there was a charge over the property regarding loan transaction made by M/s. Volvo Steel Limited. It is contended that this Court on 11.2.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 3757 of 2020 preferred by the present petitioner has directed respondent no. 2-Mamlatdar to look into the question of lifting the charge in respect of the land in question in accordance with communications made by the sales tax office. It is contended that this Court on 11.2.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 3757 of 2020 preferred by the present petitioner has directed respondent no. 2-Mamlatdar to look into the question of lifting the charge in respect of the land in question in accordance with communications made by the sales tax office. It is contended that the office of the sales tax has already informed the Mamlatdar for lifting all the charges of the Sales Tax Departments from the land of the petitioner and entry to that effect was also mutated being entry no. 1618 on 22.6.2020. It is contended that after the pencil entry was made, notice was issued to the Sales Tax Officer under Section 135-D of the Land Revenue Code, pursuant to which the Sales Tax Department had filed objection to pencil entry and due to that Mamlatdar has cancelled entry no. 1618 immediately without considering the observations made by this Court and without considering the earlier communications of the Sales Tax Department itself and has observed that the petitioner has not fulfilled the charges levied by the Sales Tax Department. This action has been challenged by the petitioner by filing present petition. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. R.C. Jani for the petitioner and Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP for the respondent-State at length. 4. Mr. R.C. Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted the same facts, which are narrated herein above. He has invited the attention of the Court to various communications and documentary evidence placed on record, which includes initial communication of the Sales Tax Officer sent to Mamlatdar stating that there is no due against the present petitioner and charge needs to be lifted. He has referred to earlier orders passed by this Court in Company Petition as well as in Special Civil Application filed by the petitioner, wherein Mamlatdar was directed to lift the charge. He has submitted that since there was no amount due of the Sales Tax Department against present petitioner, no charge over the land in question could be created or retained only for the dues of the Sales Tax Department against the erstwhile company i.e. M/s. Volvo Steel Limited, which has gone into liquidation. In view of these, he has prayed to allow present petition. 5. In view of these, he has prayed to allow present petition. 5. Per contra, learned AGP has vehemently endorsed the view of the Mamlatdar in cancelling the entry in question and submitted that there are dues of the Sales Tax Department over the property in question, which was in the name of erstwhile owner i.e. M/s. Volvo Steel Limited. He has submitted that there is huge sales tax due and, charge is there on the land in question and, therefore, present petitioner has to pay the same for release of the charge. He has submitted that action of the revenue authority is in consonance with the law and, therefore, there is no need of any interference in the said action of the authority. He has prayed to dismiss present petition. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the material placed on record. It appears from record that there is no dispute that present petitioner has purchased the property in question at the auction held at the instance of this Court in a Company Petition. It is also an admitted fact that no sales tax amount is due against the present petitioner. Arrears of sales tax is against previous owner i.e. M/s. Volvo Steel Limited, which has gone into liquidation. It also appears from record that way back in 2018, the Sales Tax Officer has made communication to Mamlatdar, Vadali, specifying that when the charge was created the land was in the name of M/s. Volvo Steel Limited but since the said property has been sold as per the order of Honourable High Court through Official Liquidator, office of the Sales Tax has already been directed to lift the charge. It is also stated that the arrears against M/s. Volvo Steel Limited is still to be recovered and, therefore, there is no question of ‘No Due Certificate’ to be issued to M/s. Volvo Steel Limited. Thus, apparently the Sales Tax Department has already informed the Mamlatdar regarding lifting of the charge over the property as it is already purchased by present petitioner through auction sale, which was ordered by this Court in a Company Petition. When it is pointedly asked to learned AGP as to whether any sales tax amount is due against present petitioner, he has candidly stated that no amount is due against present petitioner. When it is pointedly asked to learned AGP as to whether any sales tax amount is due against present petitioner, he has candidly stated that no amount is due against present petitioner. Therefore, when the property was sold by Official Liquidator as per the order of this Court in Company Petition, such property would be free from all encumbrances, except in case a condition is mentioned in this regard in the order. However, no such condition has been brought to the notice of this Court. Further when no sales tax amount is due against the present petitioner, he is entitled to have the charge removed over the property in question. The Sales Tax Department cannot insist for recovery of such sale tax amount from the successor, who has purchased the land from the erstwhile owner. 7. In view of above facts, present petition is allowed. Order dated 23.10.2020 passed by Mamlatdar in RRT-TAKARARI-BHAVAN-6-2020 cancelling entry no. 1618 is quashed and set aside and the revenue authorities are directed to restore entry no. 1618 lifting the charge in respect of the land in question. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.