Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. Rule. Ms.Amita Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. Venu Nanavati, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 5 in each petition. Mr. Manav A. Mehta, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos. 6 to 12 in Special Civil Application No. 20096/2015. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petitions are being heard and decided finally.

2. These petitions have been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of an appropriate Writ or direction, partially quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 06.10.2016, passed by respondent No. 1 Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department ("SSRD" for short), only to the extent that they direct the Deputy Collector (East), Ahmedabad, respondent No. 3 herein, to hear the revision applications and decide the same on merits, after following the principles of natural justice.

3. The petitioners have further prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Prohibition restraining the Deputy Collector from adjudicating upon RTS Appeals pending before him, as mentioned in each of the petitions.

4. As identical issues of fact and law are involved in the petitions, the parties are common and the same orders have been challenged and prayers made, the petitions have been clubbed together. Common arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and the petitions are being finally decided by this judgment.

5. For the sake of convenience, reference will be made to the facts as described in Special Civil Application No. 20096/2016. The rather complicated facts are being narrated in order to give the background, though they may not be immediately relevant to the legal issues arising in the petitions.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that he and respondents Nos. 7 to 12 are the legal heirs of Galabji Ataji Thakore. Respondent No. 6 is Udaji Ataji Thakore. Galabji Thakore and Udaji Thakore are the legal heirs of Rukhiben, who was the daughter of Chakuji Thakore and was married to Ataji Thakore. Chakuji Thakore had two legal heirs, namely, Gabhaji Chakuji and Rukhiben Chakuji. On the demise of Gabhaji Chakuji, Shakriben, his widow, was the sole survivor of the pedigree of Gabhaji Chakuji as they had no children. A copy of the pedigree has been annexed as Annexure-C to the petition.

7. Upon the demise of Chakuji Rajaji, the name of Gabhaji Chakuji and Rukhiben Chakuji came to be mutated in the revenue record in respect of Block No. 66 vide Mutation Entry No. 1534 dated 26.03.1993. Thereafter, upon the demise of Gabhaji Chakuji Thakore, respondent No. 5 (the sole contesting respondent), showing himself to be the legal heir of Gabhaji, got his name mutated along with the name of Shakriben, vide Mutation Entry No. 1643 dated 30.08.1993 though, according to the petitioner, the said respondent is not the legal heir of Gabhaji Chakuji Thakore. Upon her demise, the name of Rukhiben came to be deleted vide Mutation Entry No. 1644 dated 01.09.1993.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that out of the wedlock of Rukhiben with Ataji, Rukhiben had two sons, namely Galabji Ataji and Udaji Ataji. The petitioner asserts that when the alleged fraud of mutating his name as Amratji Gabhaji by respondent No. 5 came to the notice of the petitioners, they challenged both the Mutation Entries No. 1643 and 1644, by filing RTS Appeal No. 1356/2011 before the Deputy Collector who, after scrutinising the material on record, allowed the appeal and cancelled Mutation Entries Nos. 1643 and 1644, further directing the Mamlatdar, Daskroi, to mutate the names of the legal heirs of Gabhaji Chakuji Thakore and Rukhiben Chakuji Thakore, after verification of documents.

9. Aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 5 filed RTS Revision No.