JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20.9.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, Dhandhuka Prant (Respondent No. 2), Ahmedabad, cancelling mutation entry Nos. 2251, 2566, 3444 and 3538, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 20.9.2014 made by respondent No. 2 and the consequential mutation entry no. 4484 dated 12.11.2014, made by respondent No. 3, as being unjust, unreasonable, in violation of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 20.9.2014 made by respondent No. 2 and also the mutation entry No. 4484 dated 12.11.2014 made by respondent No. 3, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice. 2. The Brief facts, as emerged from the record of the petition, are as under: 2.1 The petitioner is an agriculturist and the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 1232 admeasuring hectare 1-16-35 situated at Village Bajarda, Taluka and District Ahmedabad. The subject land was originally owned by respondent No. 4-Sugraben Jafarhusen, who purchased the subject land from Amirbhai Ahmedbhai Sanghariyat vide sale deed dated 16.2.1998. A mutation Entry No. 2251 came to be recorded in the revenue records and was certified on 2.5.1998. Upon demise of Sugraben Jafarhusen, names of her legal heirs came to be mutated in the revenue records vide Mutation Entry No. 2566 and was duly certified. The petitioner has purchased the land from legal heirs of deceased Sugraben Jafarhusen by registered sale deed dated 19.2.2010 and mutation entry was recorded vide Entry No. 3444, which came to be certified by the Mamlatdar, Dhandhuka on 15.6.2010. Vide Entry No. 3538, the names of the family members of the petitioner were also recorded in the revenue records, which came to be certified on 23.9.2010. Vide Entry No. 3538, the names of the family members of the petitioner were also recorded in the revenue records, which came to be certified on 23.9.2010. 2.2 Respondent No. 5 filed an Appeal being RTS Appeal No. 93/2011 under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules before the Deputy Collector, Dholka requesting to cancel all the above referred entries viz. Entry Nos. 2251, 2566, 3444 and 3538 on the ground that Sugraben Jafarhusen was an agriculturist. In the said Appeal, no notice was issued to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of being heard, the Deputy Collector vide impugned order cancelled all the entries and on that basis, Mamlatdar has also recorded Entry No. 4484 dated 20.9.2014, which came to be certified on 12.11.2014. According to the petitioners, they were not served with Notice under Section 135-D of the Code before certifying this entry. It is also contended that though petitioners were in possession and petitioner was named as Opponent No. 11 in the RTS Appeal, no notice was issued and no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and thus impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector is in breach of principles of natural justice. It is also contended that on the basis of the impugned order, the Entry No. 4484 made by the Mamlatdar is also made without providing any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and no Notice under Section 135-D was issued before making such entry in the revenue records. Thus, being aggrieved by this exercise, on the part of the Revenue authorities, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 3. Heard Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned advocate for the respondent State. Perused the materials placed on record. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the respondent No. 5. 4. Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated in the Memo of Petition and has submitted that though the petitioner was added as Respondent No. 11 in the RTS Appeal, no notice was issued and no opportunity of being heard was accorded to the petitioner. She has submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Collector, therefore, needs to be set-aside, as it is in breach of principle of natural justice. She has submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Collector, therefore, needs to be set-aside, as it is in breach of principle of natural justice. She has submitted that the respondent No. 5 has already sold the land, and therefore, he has no locus-standi to challenge the entry made in favour of the respondent No. 4 and also entry of sale in favour of the petitioner. She has submitted that the entire exercise undertaken by the authorities is not proper and, therefore, the impugned order of the Deputy Collector needs to be set-aside along with consequential entry made by the Mamlatdar bearing No. 4484. She has prayed to allow the present petition. She has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1 2. Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah vs. State of Gujarat, 2011 (3) GLH 98 5. Per contra, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned AGP has submitted that there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the order of the Deputy Collector before appropriate authority. She has submitted that when the original seller was not an agriculturist, the order passed by the Deputy Collector is in consonance with the law. She has submitted that as there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this petition may be rejected accordingly. 6. In rejoinder, Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that when there is a clear breach of principle of nature justice, the alternative remedy pales into insignificance. She has also submitted that original entry was made in the year 1998 and Deputy Collector has cancelled the Entry in the year 2014 and thus there is clear delay and the power exercised is not within reasonable period of time. According to Ms. Pahwa, entry of 1998 could not be cancelled in the year 2014. 7. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and material placed on record, it emerges that there is no dispute regarding purchase of land from respondent No. 4 by the petitioner and various entries were made in the revenue record regarding the heir-ship in respect of heirs of deceased Sugraben. 7. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and material placed on record, it emerges that there is no dispute regarding purchase of land from respondent No. 4 by the petitioner and various entries were made in the revenue record regarding the heir-ship in respect of heirs of deceased Sugraben. It also emerges that there is no dispute regarding the fact that entry of sale transaction was also entered into and names of the family members of the petitioner has also been entered in the revenue records way back in the year 2010 itself. It emerges that in the year 2011, one RTS Appeal No. 93 of 2011 came to be preferred by the respondent No. 5. The order of the Deputy Collector (Page-17 Annexure ‘A’) reveals that the petitioner Shantaben Kanjibhai has been shown as Opponent No. 11 thereof. It is also revealed from Para-3 of the order that no summons or notice have been served to all the Opponents. There is also reference made by the Deputy Collector itself that the Opponent No. 11 Shantaben Kanjibhai is in possession of the land and, therefore, she needs to be heard. However, it clearly reveals from the order that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner. Even there is no iota of evidence produced to show that the notice was issued to respondent No. 11 i.e. the petitioner herein. Thus, it clearly reveals that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector is in clear breach of principles of natural justice. By the said order, the Deputy Collector has allowed the Appeal filed by respondent No. 5 and has cancelled all the revenue entries, including the entry of sale transaction in favour of the petitioner. This order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who is admittedly in possession of the property, as observed by the Deputy Collector himself in the order. Thus, the order of the Deputy Collector is not sustainable in the eyes of law as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner and, therefore, even if there is an alternative remedy available to challenge the said order before appropriate authority, that defence cannot be accepted. Thus, the order of the Deputy Collector is not sustainable in the eyes of law as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner and, therefore, even if there is an alternative remedy available to challenge the said order before appropriate authority, that defence cannot be accepted. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondent State to reject the petition on the ground of alternative remedy cannot be acceded to when there is clear breach of principles of natural justice by the concerned Revenue authority. 8. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector needs to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back to him to decide afresh the RTS Appeal No. 93/2011 from the stage of first hearing by affording appropriate opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and the impugned order needs to be set aside. Consequently, if any entry is made on the basis of the impugned order of the Deputy Collector, the same also needs to be set aside. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector (Respondent No. 2 herein) dated 20.9.2014 is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently, the Mutation Entry made by the Mamlatdar (Respondent No. 3) bearing No. 4484 dated 12.11.2014 is also quashed and set-aside. The Deputy Collector is hereby directed to re-hear the RTS Appeal No. 93 of 2011 afresh after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. Such exercise to be undertaken by the Deputy Collector as early as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 11. The Civil application also stands disposed of accordingly.