daughter of first wife Premiben of deceased Rama Dhanji initiated the proceedings to challenge entry No. 3579 which was not entertained by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 17.12.2003. Learned senior advocate has then contended that in addition thereto, even respondent No.3 passed the impugned order on 02.11.2004 cancelling two entries i. e. entry No. 3579 and entry No. 3700, in which, according to learned senior advocate, later entry was not the subject matter of challenge, but still however, by overstepping jurisdiction, respondent No.3 has passed an order which is challenged by the petitioner before the Revisional Authority, but unfortunately, without application of mind in a mechanical exercise of jurisdiction, the revision application came to be rejected. So, according to learned senior advocate, two issues have arisen in the present proceedings, firstly the powers are exercised after a long period of 19 years and secondly, the entry which was made pursuant to registered sale transaction though not under challenge was tried to be cancelled by the authority and therefore, a clear error of jurisdiction is committed by the respondent authority. As a result of this, according to learned senior advocate, both the orders impugned in these petitions deserve to be quashed and set aside.
