Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Vishrut Jani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos. 1/1, 1/2, 2, 3 and 4, and Mr. Vijay H. Nangesh, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 6 has been served but has not chosen to put in an appearance before the Court. Hence, as the said respondent does not appear to be interested, there is no requirement of the issuance of notice of Rule to her. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally, today.

2. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 07.07.2015, passed by respondent No. 1/2, Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department ("SSRD"), in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/BNS/144/14, whereby the application for the grant of interim stay, pending the revision application filed by the petitioner, has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case, relevant to the decision of the petition are that, one Bhikhabhai Pethabhai Harijan was the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 103/1 Paiki-2, situated at Village Kamodi, Taluka Deesa, District Banaskantha, admeasuring 0 Hectare, 25 Are and 28 Square Meters (the land in question). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 took care of the said Bhikhabhai Pethabhai Harijan during his last days, therefore, Bhikhabhai executed a Will dated 05.07.2005, bequeathing the land in question to the petitioner and to respondent No. 6. The validity of the Will executed by Bhikhabhai has never been challenged by any person. After the death of Bhikhabhai on 29.12.2005, the names of the petitioner and respondent No. 6 were mutated in the revenue record, vide Mutation Entry No. 1395 dated 23.05.2006. This entry has been certified by the fourth respondent Circle Officer, on 01.11.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that ever since then, the petitioner and respondent No. 6 are jointly in possession of the land in question and are carrying on agricultural activities thereupon.

4. Due to certain disputes between the petitioner and respondent No. 5, the latter tried to harass the petitioner. One instance of such harassment is stated to be that he preferred an appeal against the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner, before the Deputy Collector, after a delay of five years. Respondent No. 5 was unsuccessful in the said appeal. After a period of about one and a half years from the rejection of the appeal, respondent No. 5 preferred a revision application before the Collector who, by the order dated 20.09.2014, held that the present petitioner was not an agriculturist, therefore, he could not obtain such status by way of a Will. While allowing the revision application of respondent No. 5, the Collector has also directed that proceedings be initiated under Section 84C of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("the Tenancy Act"), against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner has filed the above-mentioned revision application against the aforesaid order of the Collector, before the SSRD, which is pending adjudication. Along with the revision application the petitioner filed an application for the grant of interim stay against the order of the Collector. This application has been rejected by the SSRD vide the impugned order dated 07.07.2015, giving rise to the filing of the present petition.

6. Mr. Hriday C. Buch, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that initially, the Collector had fixed the revision application filed by respondent No. 5 for hearing on the point of delay as well as the locus standi of respondent No. 5, which objections had been raised by the petitioner. However, without adjudicating upon the above preliminary issues, the Collector thought it fit to pass the final order on the revision application itsel