1. Rule. Ms.Nisha M.Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1, 6 to 10. Mr.Kashyap R.Joshi, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.2 to 4. Respondent No.5 has been served but has not put in an appearance, therefore it is not considered necessary to issue notice of Rule to the said respondent. In view of the fact that it is the order of the Additional Secretary (Appeals) that is under challenge, the said respondent would not have much of a role to play in the petition.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the communication/ order dated 06.08.2011 of the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, on the grounds stated in the petition.

3. The brief facts of the case relevant for the decision of the petition are that Mutation Entry No.3796 dated 10.11.1999, pertaining to revenue records of village Kantharia, District: Bharuch, reflecting family partition of various parcels of land between families of the heirs of Wali Ahmed and heirs of Wali Musa, came to be certified by the Circle Officer, Aali, pursuant to a Deed of Partition. It is the case of the petitioner that out of the various lands owned by the heirs of Ahmed Musa, Survey Nos.37/1 and 45/1 came to be owned by the present petitioner vide various Sale Deeds executed by the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner. Against the certification of Revenue Entry No.3796, some of the heirs of Wali Musa, the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 herein, preferred a Dispute Application before the Deputy Collector, Bharuch. Vide order dated 15.12.2008, the Deputy Collector cancelled Revenue Entry No.3796, and remitted the case to the Mamlatdar, Bharuch, to proceed in the matter after giving the parties an opportunity to submit fresh evidence on record, and pass an appropriate order. Against the order dated 15.12.2008 of the Deputy Collector, respondent No.5 herein, as Power-of-Attorney holder of the heirs of Ahmed Musa, preferred an appeal before the Collector, Bharuch. The Collector, vide order dated 25.06.2009, remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector, with a direction to decide the case within three months. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Collector, vide order dated 30.11.2009, held that as Regular Civil Suit No.164 of 2001 was pending before the Competent Court, Revenue Entry No.3796 be restored subject to the outcome of the Civil Suit. Respondent Nos.2 – 4 preferred an appeal against this order of the Deputy Collector, before the Collector, Bharuch. Vide order dated 27.12.2010, the Collector partly allowed the appeal, by cancelling Entry No.3796 and directing maintenance of status-quo, stating that the order would be subject to the final outcome of the civil suit. The petitioner preferred a revision application against the order of the Collector dated 27.12.2010, before the Additional Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, along with an application for grant of a stay order. The revision application of the petitioner is pending final decision. However, upon the application for grant of an interim order, the Additional Secretary (Appeals), by order dated 30.04.2011, granted relief to the petitioner holding that “in relation to the impugned order of the Collector, Bharuch, status-quo may be maintained with respect to the Disputed Entry No.3796”. An application was preferred by the learned advocate for respondents Nos.2-4 on 01.08.2011 before the Additional Secretary without notice to the petitioner, submitting that the authorities below had wrongly interpreted the order dated 30.04.2011 granting status-quo and that the Circle Officer had wrongly certified Entry No.4482 dated 02.07.2011, which had changed the condition of the land. The Additional Secretary (Appeals), vide communication/ order dated 06.08.2011, interpreted th