JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- "A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application; B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may further be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 06.03.2010, 05.11.2019, 19.03.2020 and 03.03.2023 deciding not to certify the Entry No.2638 dated 01.01.2010 made in Village Form No.VI, with respect to the land of Village Karol, Taluka Chuda, District Surendranagar, passed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 viz. ANNEXURES B, C, D & H respectively to the petition holding de hors S.135C of the Code, arbitrary, illegal, perverse and passed in complete disregard to the judgments cited at the bar in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice; C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the further execution, operation and implementation of the impugned Orders ANNEXURES B, C, D & H and may further be pleased to restrain the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's use, occupation and possession of the land survey No.238 admeasuring 2 - 25- 62 Hectares of Village, Karol, Taluka Chuda, District Surendranagar to meet with the ends of justice;" 2. Since the relief prayed for does not give the clear picture about what the petitioner has challenged, the record indicates that Annexure B is the order dated 6.3.2010 passed by the Circle Officer (Revenue) rejecting mutation Entry No.2638. Annexure C is the order dated 5.11.2019 passed by the Assistant Collector, Limbdi in RRT Appeal Case No.35 of 2019 whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 6.3.2010 was rejected. Annexure D is the order passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in RRT Revision Case No.11 of 2020 whereby the petitioner's revision application was rejected vide order dated 19.3.2020 and Annexure H is the order passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) dated 3.3.2023 in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/SNR/34/2020 rejecting the petitioner's revision application. 3. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself. Rule. Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. 4. 3. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself. Rule. Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition as summarized by learned advocate Mr. Kanabar are stated as under :- 4.1 The petitioner happens to be the daughter of one Sutar Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata who had purchased the agricultural land of village Rampara, Taluka Kotdasangani having Survey Nos.41/1 and 42 paiki 1 admeasuring Acres 3 - 09 Gunthas and Acres 4 - 05 Gunthas respectively. In respect of the aforesaid land held by her father, Entry No.511 was mutated in Village Form No.6 and the same was certified on 16.3.1969 for which on 7.7.2011, Deputy Collector & SDM, Rajkot initiated proceedings for violation of Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949 contending that when father of the petitioner i.e. Sutar Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata purchased the land, he was not an agriculturist. 4.2. Father of the petitioner Sutar Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata failed in his challenge to the aforesaid proceedings before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) as the learned SSRD dismissed the revision application No.MVV/Gharkhed/RJD/4/2016 vide order dated 23.6.2017. The said order was challenged by the father of the petitioner by way of Special Civil Application No.17068 of 2017 and vide order dated 22.12.2021, the coordinate Bench of this Court held that the exercise of powers after 42 years was illegal and allowed the petition and the aforesaid order was never carried in appeal and had become final qua the father of the present petitioner. 4.3. In the meantime, the present petitioner even before the proceedings against her father for breach of Section 54 of Gharkhed Ordinance were initiated, purchased parcel of land by way of registered Sale Deed dated 29.6.2009 being land bearing Revenue Survey No.283 admeasuring 2 - 25 - 62 Hectare - R.A. - Sq. Mts. at village Karol, Taluka Chuda, Dist. 4.3. In the meantime, the present petitioner even before the proceedings against her father for breach of Section 54 of Gharkhed Ordinance were initiated, purchased parcel of land by way of registered Sale Deed dated 29.6.2009 being land bearing Revenue Survey No.283 admeasuring 2 - 25 - 62 Hectare - R.A. - Sq. Mts. at village Karol, Taluka Chuda, Dist. Surendranagar for which Deputy Mamlatdar, E-Dhara, Taluka Chuda posted Entry No.2638 on 12.1.2010 and the said entry was rejected vide order dated 6.3.2010 by the Circle Officer (Revenue) on the ground that Entry No.511 in respect of father of the petitioner, namely, Sutar Manjibhai Bhavanbhai was an entry mutated irregularly and there is no affidavit filed that the present petitioner is not holding the land more than the maximum permissible holding of the land. 4.4 All these happened in the year 2010 and till the order dated 6.3.2010 was passed, the Deputy Collector, Rajkot did not initiate any proceedings in respect of the transaction of land of the petitioner's father purchased in the year 1969. So the date on which transaction had taken place, the petitioner or his father's status as an agriculturist was never questioned. 4.5 Pursuant to the order dated 6.3.2010, as the entry in favour of the petitioner was not certified being Entry No.2638, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Assistant Collector, Limbdi by preferring Appeal No.35 of 2019 which was rejected vide order dated 5.11.2019. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by RRT/Revision Case No.11 of 2020 before the Collector, Surendranagar. However, the said revision was also met with the same fate vide order dated 19.3.2020. 4.6 The petitioner made one more unsuccessful attempt to challenge the aforesaid order by preferring Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/SNR/34/2020. However, the same was also rejected vide order dated 3.3.2023. Therefore, this petition is preferred. 4.7 In the meantime, as the father of the petitioner's status as agriculturist was questioned by way of proceedings under Section 54 of the Gharkhed Ordinance, that led to filing of Special Civil Application No.17068 of 2017 as father of the petitioner, namely, Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata also failed before all the revenue authorities. Therefore, this petition is preferred. 4.7 In the meantime, as the father of the petitioner's status as agriculturist was questioned by way of proceedings under Section 54 of the Gharkhed Ordinance, that led to filing of Special Civil Application No.17068 of 2017 as father of the petitioner, namely, Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata also failed before all the revenue authorities. The aforesaid petition was decided vide oral judgment dated 22.12.2021 and the coordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the petition quashed and set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities and directed to make consequential revenue entry in the revenue records in respect of the land held by the father of the petitioner. 4.8 Since at that point of time, the petitioner's revision application was pending before SSRD, the aforesaid judgment was brought to the notice of the learned SSRD. But despite that, SSRD even after taking note of the aforesaid judgment rejected the revision application preferred by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 3.3.2023 and hence, this petition is preferred. 5. Mr. P. J. Kanabar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the date on which the land was purchased by the petitioner in the year 2009, at that point of time, father of the petitioner was an agriculturist and hence, by way of succession, even the petitioner also can be said to be an agriculturist and at that point of time, the status as an agriculturist enjoyed by the father of the petitioner was never questioned by the revenue authorities. It is only in the year 2011 that after delay of 42 years, the petitioner's father's transaction of the year 1969 was taken into suo-motu revision and proceedings under the provisions of Gharkhed Ordinance were initiated wherein the father of the petitioner ultimately succeeded in the year 2021 and today the position is that when the proceedings in respect of the father's status as an agriculturist is decided in favour of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner's status as an agriculturist ought not to have been questioned by the revenue authorities and SSRD ought not to have rejected the petitioner's revision application on 3.3.2023 when Special Civil Application No.17068 of 2017 of the father of the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 22.12.2021 and the said order was never carried in appeal by way of Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same has become final. 5.1 Mr. Kanabar further submitted that though the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the SSRD, the SSRD for some extraneous reason completely overlooked the aforesaid decision of this Court in respect of the father of the petitioner and confirmed the orders passed by the revenue authorities and hence, though the petitioner's status as an agriculturist was on the basis of succession, the revenue authorities ignoring the fact that the father's transaction in respect of another parcel of the land in question were accepted, as the powers were exercised belatedly, the proceedings against the daughter also could not have taken place or at least the SSRD could not have rejected the revision application as by that time, the litigation in respect of the father's status as an agriculturist had attained finality and, therefore, the proceedings in respect of daughter could have been considered in light of the decision rendered by this Court in respect of father of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside in light of the decision dated 22.12.2021 rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.17068 of 2017 as regards the father of the petitioner, though in respect of a different land. 6. Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that the proceedings against the father were initiated on the basis that the father was not an agriculturist. She further submitted that the father of the petitioner has not succeeded on merit, but the orders passed by the revenue authorities initiating the proceedings under Gharkhed Ordinance and more particularly, for breach of Section 54 were quashed on the ground of exercise of powers belatedly after 42 years. Merely because the father of the petitioner has succeeded in those proceedings, it does not mean that the father has acquired the status as an agriculturist. Merely because the father of the petitioner has succeeded in those proceedings, it does not mean that the father has acquired the status as an agriculturist. She further submitted that it is the duty of the petitioner to prove independently by placing on record the documents that she herself is an agriculturist and in absence of any such documents, the proceedings initiated by documentary evidence, the action of not certifying the mutation entry in respect of sale of land executed in favour of the petitioner when the entry was rejected vide order dated 6.3.2010 cannot be said to be illegal and hence, all the subsequent orders whereby the aforesaid order was challenged also cannot be said to be illegal as the present petitioner - daughter of Sutar Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata is claiming her status as an agriculturist on the basis of her father being an agriculturist but her father Sutar Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata could never prove that he was an agriculturist and he succeeded only on technical ground of delay. She, therefore, submitted that all the revenue authorities have rightly passed the orders by applying the correct law and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned orders. 7. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I found that father of the petitioner, namely, Sutar Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata purchased a parcel of land in different part of State for which Entry No.511 was mutated. The said transaction had taken place in the year 1962 for which show-cause notice was issued by the Collector, Rajkot only in the year 2011 for breach of Section 54 of the Gharkhed Ordinance. That also would indicate that only show- cause notice was issued in the year 2011, the status of father of the petitioner as an agriculturist was never questioned by any of the revenue authorities. It is before issuance of show-cause notice in the year 2011, the transaction in respect of land in question had taken place in the year 2009 for which mutation Entry No.2638 was mutated and ultimately, it was not certified and rejected vide order dated 6.3.2010. The date on which the entry was rejected, there were no proceedings under the Gharkhed Ordinance or under any other Ordinance or Act questioning the status of the father of the petitioner as an agriculturist. 8. The date on which the entry was rejected, there were no proceedings under the Gharkhed Ordinance or under any other Ordinance or Act questioning the status of the father of the petitioner as an agriculturist. 8. Further, when the father of the petitioner has succeeded in his challenge upto this Court and the said order has not been challenged by preferring any Letters Patent Appeal, the said order has become final qua the father of the petitioner, namely, Sutar Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata. Considering the aforesaid aspect, it can certainly be said that once the father's status as an agriculturist is not disturbed and when the father still holds the agricultural land and during the time when his status as an agriculturist was not questioned, if the daughter has purchased any agricultural land, it cannot be said that the daughter is required to produce any independent evidence of becoming an agriculturist as she has derived the status as an agriculturist by way of succession. Situation could have been different had the daughter purchased the land after the proceedings under the Gharkhed ordinance were initiated as at the relevant point of time, atleast father's status as an agriculturist can be said to have been questioned. But in the instant case, much before the proceedings, no breach of Section 54 of the Gharkhed Ordinance were initiated, the present petitioner has purchased the agricultural land and applied for mutation of revenue Entry No.2638. At the relevant point of time i.e. on 6.3.2010, when the aforesaid mutation of entry was rejected, the authority had no material either against the father or against the daughter and merely because the status of the father of the petitioner as an agriculturist could not be verified, the aforesaid entry ought not to have been rejected. At the relevant point of time, the authority could have asked for some documentary evidence from the petitioner to prove from her father's status as an agriculturist. 9. Be that as it may, today the situation is that the father's status as an agriculturist has remained intact. The suo-motu revision initiated by the State against the father for breach of Section 64 has resulted in favour of the father of the petitioner, namely, Sutar Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata and, therefore, even today the father is holding agricultural land as stated by Mr. Kanabar. 10. The suo-motu revision initiated by the State against the father for breach of Section 64 has resulted in favour of the father of the petitioner, namely, Sutar Manjibhai Bhavanbhai Khambhayata and, therefore, even today the father is holding agricultural land as stated by Mr. Kanabar. 10. In view of the above, when the father of the petitioner has succeeded in Special Civil Application No.17068 of 2017, there cannot be a different yardstick to examine status of daughter as an agriculturist. Further, the record indicates that the decision dated 22.12.2021 in Special Civil Application No.17068 of 2017 was produced before the learned SSRD and SSRD has taken note of the said fact in paragraph 2.2 of the impugned order dated 3.3.2023. Once even the SSRD was also appraised about the latest development, the SSRD was not justified in ignoring it completely and confirming the orders passed by the revenue authorities, more particularly, when the aforesaid decision was never challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal. 11. Resultantly, all the impugned orders i.e. (i) order dated 6.3.2010 passed by the Circle Officer (Revenue) rejecting mutation Entry No.2638, (ii) order dated 5.11.2019 passed by the Assistant Collector, Limbdi in RRT Appeal Case No.35 of 2019, (iii) order dated 19.3.2020 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in RRT Revision Case No.11 of 2020 and (iv) order dated 3.3.2023 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/SNR/34/2020 are required to be quashed and set aside and the same are quashed and set aside. Consequential Entry No.2368 in favour of the petitioner is required to be restored. The petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute.