JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehul Shah for learned advocate Mr. Vishal Mehta for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent-State. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “a. A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Respondent No.1 in MVV/HKP/AHD/90/2011 dated 28.02.2011 and the judgment and order passed by the Respondent No.3 in RTS/Appeal Case No. 88/2007 dated 20.06.2009, by allowing the Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner before the Respondent No.1, as prayed for. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 3.1 One Kantiji Chhaguji Thakore was holding a land bearing Survey No. 1284/2, T.P.Scheme No. 27 and Final Plot Nos. 4/42/1 and 4/12/2 of Village-Vejalpur, Taluka-City- District Ahmedabad. The petitioner-society purchased the said land from Kantiji Thakore and the agreement to sale was executed on 16.08.1990. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the order passed by the Revenue Authorities under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (‘ULC Act’ for short) the original owners had preferred Special Civil Application No. 3915 of 1992 before this Court challenging the same. This Court, vide order dated 12.05.1999 abated the proceedings initiated by the the Revenue authorities as the possession of the land in question was not taken by the authorities. 3.3 The State of Gujarat and Competent Authority challenged said judgment and order by preferring Review Application being Misc. Civil Application No. 1498 of 1999 before this Court which was rejected vide order dated 10.09.1999. 3.4 Thereafter, on 16.09.1999, the petitioner-Society purchased the land in question from its original owners by a registered sale deed and a Revenue Entry No. 8126 to that effect was mutated on 24.09.1999 in the revenuer records. 3.5 The State of Gujarat thereafter preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 978 of 2001 before this Court challenging the orders dated 12.05.1999 and 10.09.1999 and this Court on 29.07.2004 remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the case on merits. 3.5 The State of Gujarat thereafter preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 978 of 2001 before this Court challenging the orders dated 12.05.1999 and 10.09.1999 and this Court on 29.07.2004 remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the case on merits. 3.6 A Revenue Entry No. 10274 giving effect to the aforesaid order was mutated in the revenue records on 08.10.2004 recording the order of maintaining status quo in respect of the land in question. 3.7 This Court, thereafter on 20.12.2006 passed an order rejecting the petition preferred by the original owners. Accordingly, the respondent No.3-Deputy Collector vide letter dated 24.01.2007 directed respondent No.5-Talati-Cum-Mantri to mutate the name of State of Gujarat in the revenue records of the land in question. 3.8 The Talati-cum-Mantri mutated the Revenue Entry No. 11279 on 13.04.2007 in favour of the State Government and certified the same on 29.05.2007. 3.9 Consequently, the petitioner-Society preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 75 of 2007 on 09.02.2007 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land in question in which the Civil Court vide order dated 09.02.2007 granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner by directing the State Government to maintain status quo in respect of the ownership and possession of the land. The interim relief was time and again extended. 3.10 Further, the petitioner-society preferred an appeal being RTS/Appeal/Case No. 88/2007 before the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, who by order dated 22.06.2009 dismissed the appeal without considering the fact of granting interim relief by the Civil Court. 3.11 In the meanwhile, the original owners have preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 617 of 2007 challenging order dated 20.12.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3915 of 1992 before this Court which was dismissed by order dated 29.03.2012. 3.12 Aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2009, the petitioner-society preferred Application being L.B./R.A. No. 304/2009 before the Collector on 24.03.2011 which was rejected by the Collector. 3.13 Against the same, the petitioner preferred Revision Application being HKP/AMD/ 90/11 before respondent No.1 Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department [‘SSRD’ for short] and the respondent No.1 vide order dated 13.10.2011 directed to maintain status quo. 3.14 The original owners, against the order of this Court dated 29.03.2012, preferred Civil Appeal No. 8252 of 2013 before the Apex Court which was also dismissed by order dated 27.08.2013 with a direction to approach appropriate forum. 3.14 The original owners, against the order of this Court dated 29.03.2012, preferred Civil Appeal No. 8252 of 2013 before the Apex Court which was also dismissed by order dated 27.08.2013 with a direction to approach appropriate forum. 3.15 Respondent No.1 vide order dated 20.03.2017 rejected the aforesaid revision application confirming the order passed by respondent No.2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-society preferred the present petition. 4. At the outset, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul Shah for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Collector, Collector and SSRD have committed a grave error in confirming the Entry No. 11279 dated 13.04.2007 which was passed on dismissal of the Special Civil Application No. 3915 of 1992 vide order dated 25.12.2006 passed by this Court on the basis of the letter dated 24.06.2007 of the Competent authority and Deputy Collector under the ULC Act. It was submitted that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing, nor any notice was issued under section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 [‘Code’ for short] by the City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad while certifying the said entry on 25.09.2007. 4.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shah invited the attention of the Court to the remarks made in the Village Form No.6 to the effect that against the order passed by the Gujarat High Court, order of the lower court cannot be considered as well as application for objection also cannot be considered. It was submitted that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing to raise the objection that the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 75 of 2007 has directed to maintain status quo till final disposal of the suit with regard to the land admeasuring 6185 sq.mtrs of Survey No. 1284 Paiki at Final Plot No. 4/12/1 and 4/12/2 situated at Vejalpur Ahmedabad. 4.2 It was further submitted that the SSRD has recorded all the findings in favour of the petitioner and inspite of recording such findings, in the operative portion of the order, the revision application is dismissed confirming the order dated 24.03.2011 passed by the Collector. 4.3 It was submitted that the Deputy Collector also has not considered the aspect of order of interim relief granted by the City Civil Court though the reference was made to such order by the Deputy Collector in the order dated 24.03.2011. 4.3 It was submitted that the Deputy Collector also has not considered the aspect of order of interim relief granted by the City Civil Court though the reference was made to such order by the Deputy Collector in the order dated 24.03.2011. It was pointed out that the Collector has also not considered the order passed by the Civil Court to maintain the status quo and therefore, the land could not have been mutated in the name of the State Government during pendency of the civil proceedings. 4.4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shah also pointed out that as per the Court Commission conducted during the course of trial, the possession of the land in question is with the petitioner-Society and therefore, merely only because there is mention of the survey number in the list prepared by the Government, the land in question could not have been ordered by the authority to be mutated in the name of the Government. 5. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Dhawan Jayswal submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact and Deputy Collector, Collector and SSRD, all have considered the pending civil suit filed by the petitioner in the year 2007 and the impugned orders are passed subject to outcome of such civil suit and therefore, no interference may be made while exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that while certifying the Entry No. 11279 on 13.04.2007, the City Mamlatdar has not given any opportunity of hearing as prescribed under section 135D of the Code to the petitioner to raise any objection and therefore, there is flagrant breach of principles of natural justice and neither the Deputy Collector, Collector, or SSRD has consider this aspect of the matter. 7. It also emerges from the record that the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad has granted the status quo on 09.02.2007 with regard to the land in question which was confirmed during the course of the civil suit. It is informed to this Court that the Civil Suit No. 75 of 2007 is still pending and is at the stage of evidence. 8. It is informed to this Court that the Civil Suit No. 75 of 2007 is still pending and is at the stage of evidence. 8. On perusal of the order dated 09.02.2007 passed by the Civil Court, it appears that the suit is filed by the petitioner-society for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the land in question to declare that the petitioner is the owner of the land and is having possession since many years and therefore, the possession of the petitioner should not be disturbed without following the due process of law by the Government. 9. No entry of the order dated 09.02.2007 is mutated in the revenue record though the same was disclosed on behalf of the petitioner. The reason given by the Mamlatdar while certifying Entry No. 11279 is that the order of the High Court would prevail over the order of the Trial Court and therefore, application for objection is not tenable. This Court has dismissed Special Civil Application No. 3915 of 1992 arising out of the proceedings under the ULC Act which is upheld in Letters Patent Appeal No. 617 of 2007. But meanwhile, the Civil Suit No. 75 of 2007 filed by the petitioner is pending before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad wherein order of status quo qua land in question is passed on 09.02.2007. 10. In view of the above undisputed facts, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector dated 20.06.2009, Collector dated 24.03.2011 and SSRD dated 28.02.2017 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the City Mamlatdar for giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to submit objections. The Entry No. 11279 shall be considered as Pencil (Kuchha) Entry as per Rule 106(1) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules,1972 and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the City Mamlatdar is directed to consider to certify such Entry in accordance with law. 11. The City Mamlatdar is also directed to consider pending proceedings of the Civil Suit No. 75 of 2007 and the order passed therein as well as the proceedings under the ULC Act as on 30.04.2007 and order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 617 of 2007. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.