JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the learned Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.HKP/Kachchh/39/2010 as well as the order dated 10.2.2010 passed by the Collector, Kachchh in Land Revenue Rules 108 (6) Case No.122/2010. 2. Considering the fact that the petition is of the year 2017 and the same is pending for admission hearing since last more than seven years, with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up finally. Hence, Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of rule. 3. While issuing notice, the coordinate Bench of this Court had granted ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 13 (b) and 13 (c) in favour of the petitioner and the said relief is in operation till today, according to the parties. 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under :- 4.1 It is the case of the petitioner as submitted by learned advocate Mr. B. Y. Mankad that one Vala Nathu, father-in-law of the petitioner was a tenant of Jivram Mandan who happens to be father of respondent No.3. Rasiklal Jivram was holding the agricultural land named "Kharu" bearing old Survey No.626/4 having corresponding new Survey No.778 in the village Varsamedi in Anjar Taluka of Kachchh District. The said Vala Nathu was cultivating the land before the year 1940 and was paying rent to owner i.e. Jivram Mandan. 4.2 In the year 1961, upon creation of State of Gujarat, the Government prepared a statement of agricultural land and in that statement of land, name of Jivram Mandan was shown as an owner of the land and name of Vala Nathu was shown as a tenant of the said land. In the statement of land, in Hakka Patrak, name of Jivram Mandan was mutated vide Entry No.96 with regard to the land bearing old Revenue Survey No.626/4 and the same was promulgated on 24.7.1962 and Jivram Mandan was accepted as an owner of the land. As Nathu Vala, father-in-law of the petitioner was in possession of the land, his name was shown in the column as an agriculturist in the 7/12 extracts from the year 1964-65 to 1975- 76. As Nathu Vala, father-in-law of the petitioner was in possession of the land, his name was shown in the column as an agriculturist in the 7/12 extracts from the year 1964-65 to 1975- 76. At the time of promulgation, according to the petitioner, the area of the land was shown as 11 Acres 08 Gunthas which was incorrect according to the petitioner and the same was occurred due to a mistake. In the new record of rights, the said land was shown in the name of Government vide Entry No.462 which was promulgated on 30.3.1976. Though Vala Nathu was in possession of the land during the aforesaid period, in Entry No.462, in the last column in the remarks, it was stated that "regularize the case of encroachment". Because of the aforesaid endorsement in Entry No.462, name of Vala Nathu was deleted from the column of the agriculturist in the revenue extracts i.e. Village Form No.12 though he remained in possession of the land in question. 4.3 The aforesaid mistake continued till the year 2000 and Vala Nathu remained in possession of the land in question till the year 2000. In response to an application dated 1.2.2000 preferred by the petitioner, Talati of Varsamedi village mutated the name of the petitioner in Village Form No.12 vide Entry No.1610 dated 10.2.2000 and the said entry was certified on 31.3.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner's name was mutated in Village Form No.7/12 from the year 1999 - 2000. The aforesaid Entry No.1610 was taken in suo-motu revision after a period of 10 years and issued show-cause notice dated 11.1.2010 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 only and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the proceedings before the Collector, Kachchh took place and by order dated 10.2.2010, the Collector ordered cancellation of Entry No.1610. The petitioner was unaware about the aforesaid proceedings as no notice was issued to the petitioner in the said proceedings and, therefore, upon becoming aware about the same, the petitioner challenged the said order by preferring Revision Application No.30 of 2010 before the learned Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals). However, the said revision application also came to be rejected vide order dated 1.8.2016. 4.4 Therefore, being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 5. Mr. However, the said revision application also came to be rejected vide order dated 1.8.2016. 4.4 Therefore, being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 5. Mr. B. Y. Mankad, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has mainly submitted that there is clear violation of principles of natural justice as though suo-motu proceedings has taken place after delay of 10 years, for entry which was mutated in the year 2000, no notice was issued to the petitioner in the said suo-motu proceedings and without hearing the petitioner and/or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, order dated 10.2.2010 came to be passed by the District Collector, Kachchh which was thereafter confirmed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals). He, therefore, submitted that the matter is required to be remanded back to the Collector, Kachchh for fresh adjudication by quashing and setting aside both the impugned orders. 6. The petition was opposed by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jay Trivedi who submitted on the basis of affidavit-in-reply filed today only by the Assistant Collector, Kachchh that Entry No.1610 which was mutated in the year 2008 as contended in paragraph 10 of the reply was taken in suo-motu revision as objection was raised in respect of the said Entry by legal heirs of the original owners and hence, there is no delay in initiating the proceedings. However, he could not point out that at any point of time, notice was issued to the petitioner in whose favour Entry No.1610 was mutated. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi drew attention of this Court about the notices which were issued to Mistri Rasiklal Jivraj Mandan and Pathak Pranlal Jatashankar by publishing it on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat for which a Panchnama dated 27.1.2010 was drawn as those two persons were not residing in the village Varsamedi. However, he could not point out any material either from the record or from the affidavit-in-reply to indicate that petitioner was issued notice before cancelling Entry No.1610 or that at any point of time, the petitioner was aware about the ongoing proceedings before the Collector, Kachchh. 7. Learned advocate Mr. However, he could not point out any material either from the record or from the affidavit-in-reply to indicate that petitioner was issued notice before cancelling Entry No.1610 or that at any point of time, the petitioner was aware about the ongoing proceedings before the Collector, Kachchh. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Jinesh Kapadia appearing for respondent Nos.4.1 to 4.6 submitted that even respondent No.4 also expired in November 2005 and the impugned order of the District Collector, Kachchh mentions that the respondent No.4 was issued show-cause notice and the said notice had returned unserved. He, therefore, submitted that even respondent No.4 or his legal heirs were also not heard before the impugned order dated 10.2.2010 was passed by the District Collector, Kachchh. He, therefore, submitted that for the time being, by leaving aside the inter-se dispute between the respondent No.4 and the petitioner and keeping all the rights and contentions of the petitioner as well as legal heirs of respondent No.4 open before the Collector, Kachchh, both the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside. At this juncture, Mr. Kapadia submitted that the respondents support the case of the petitioner keeping their right to contest the proceedings before the Collector, Kachchh on merits. He also submitted that even legal heirs of respondent No.4 are aggrieved by the direction whereby the land in question is directed to be vested in the State Government in proceedings in respect of mutation of revenue entry. 8. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. Though the petitioner and respondents have made multi-fold contentions in respect of violation of principles of natural justice in respect of belated issuance of notice while exercising suo-motu revisional powers which according to the petitioner and respondent No.4 make the notice without jurisdiction and the proceedings on the basis of such notice would be vitiated according to Mr. Mankad, considering the fact that learned AGP Mr. Mankad, considering the fact that learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi could not point out any material from the record or from the affidavit-in-reply indicating that at any point of time, when the suo-motu proceedings were initiated by the Collector, Kachchh in respect of Entry No.1610, the petitioner was put to notice about the same or that the petitioner was heard and considering the fact that the aforesaid fact has not been considered by the learned Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), I am of the opinion that the petition requires consideration and hence, the same is required to be allowed only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice without entering into the merits of the matter. 9. Resultantly, the present petition stands allowed. The order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the learned Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.HKP/Kachchh/39/2010 as well as the order dated 10.2.2010 passed by the Collector, Kachchh in Land Revenue Rules 108 (6) Case No.122/2010 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector, Kachchh to decide the same afresh and the District Collector, Kachchh is also directed to issue notice to all the parties and thereafter conduct the proceedings. The parties to the proceedings are also directed to approach the District Collector, Kachchh within a period of 15 days if any of the litigant has expired in the meantime and their legal heirs are required to be brought on record by furnishing the relevant required details to the District Collector, Kachchh so that there may not be any further complications in the remand proceedings. 10. Though the impugned orders are quashed and set aside, it was pointed out by learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi that during the pendency of the present petition, ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 13 (b) and (c) was operating in favour of the petitioners since beginning and just to secure that petitioner may not part with the land in question, the parties to the proceedings may be directed to maintain status-quo till the first hearing before the District Collector, Kachchh in the remand proceedings takes place. The aforesaid request is reasonable. Hence, parties to the present proceedings are directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the land in question till the first hearing before the District Collector, Kachchh in the remand proceedings takes place. Direct service is permitted.