K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mathew, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bhatt, learned advocates for respondents No. 2.1 to 2.4 as well as Mr. Mehta, learned AGP for respondent No. 2.

2. In present petition, the petitioner has placed under challenge order dated 21.12.2004 passed by the learned Tribunal in Revision Application No. 1 of 1998 whereby the learned Tribunal set aside the order dated 23.3.2000 passed by the Deputy Collector and the order dated 1.11.2000 passed by the Collector whereby the said authorities confirmed Entry No. 116 mutated in revenue records.

3. So far as factual background is concerned, the petitioner has averred and stated that:

"3. The petitioner states that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are brothers, The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were cultivating 3 piece of land admeasuring about 6 acres. This piece of land originally belonged to one Ramanlal Maganlal Shah. The petitioner bought the property in question from Ramanlal Maganlal Shah and the respondent No. 2. After the said transaction, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 were cultivating 3 acres and 3 gunthas each. The petitioner bought the land in question on 14.4.1970. Entry No. 68 dated 22.8.1982 was also entered in the land record to this effect. This entry was made by the Talati after following the procedure while giving notice u/s. 135, preparing Panchkyas, etc. On 22.8.1982, the respondent No. 2 remained present before the Talati and gave statement in favour of the present petitioner. The respondent No. 2 or the authority did not initiate any proceedings u/s. 84 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

4. The petitioner states that though the transaction had taken place on 14.4.1970, no proceedings were initiated by any of the respondents till the year 1991. On 23.12.1991, the present respondent No. 2 approached the Dy. Collector, Rajpipla with application under Sec. 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The said application was registered as 739/7399 Cage No. 1/92 by the learned Dy. Collector, Rajpipla. On the basis of this application made by the respondent No. 2, the Dy. Collector, Rajpipla initiated proceedings against the petitioner and by an order dated 19.12.1992 held in favour of the present petitioner and the notice issued by the Dy. Collector, Rajpipla was withdrawn.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.1992 passed by the learned Dy. Collector, Rajpipla, the respondent No. 2 herein approached the learned Revenue Secretary, the respondent No. 1 herein with a Revision Application No. 1/98. During this period, the authority had made two entries in respect of the said land in question. The legality and validity of these entries were also challenged by the respondent No. 2. Finally, the dispute with regard to these entries also came to be challenged before the learned Revenue Secretary. By the impugned order dated 21.12.2004, the learned Revenue Secretary heard both the matters together and by a common order, the learned Revenue Secretary was pleased to set aside the order dated 22.1.1993 passed in 73AA Case No. 1/921 and was further pleased to set aside the entry No. 116 upheld by the Dy. Collector, Rajpipla by his order dated 23.3.2000 and the order dated 11.11.2000 passed by the learned Collector in Revision 15/2000 confirming the Dy. Collector's order.

The petitioner has filed another petition before this Hon'ble Court challenging the order passed in Revision 6/2001 passed by the learned Revenue Secretary.

6. The petitioner further states that during this period, in the year 1993, the petitioner approached the Civil Court with Regular Civil Suit No. 13/91 praying for a permanent injunction against the respondent No. 2 herein. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dediapada was pleased to grant an ex-parte order. Thereafter, after hearing the parties on 19.10.1993, the learned Judge was pleased to vacate the same. Being aggrieved by this order passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dedi