B.M. Trivedi, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, challenging the impugned order passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "the SSRD") in Revision Application No. 55/1995, in so far as it related to the cancellation of the Entry No. 621 in Revenue Record in respect of the land in question purchased by the original petitioner Bhikhubhai Naranji Desai.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that one Ranchhodbhai Makanji Desai was the owner of several lands, including the land in question, i.e. Survey No. 150/2 is situated at Village Dashwada, Taluka Pardi, District Valsad. The said Ranchhodbhai Makanji Desai had four sons named Dahyabhai Ranchhodbhai, Chhotubhai Ranchhodbhai, Babubhai Ranchhodbhai and Ramanbhai Ranchhodbhai. On the death of the said Ranchhodbhai Makanji Desai on 24.9.1958, a revenue entry being Entry No. 312 came to be posted in the Village Form No. 6 by which the names of his four sons were entered. It appears that thereafter one of the sons i.e. Babubhai also expired on 28.12.1973 and the name of his wife Induben was mutated as per the Entry No. 519. Another Entry No. 620 also came to be posted on 2.8.1985, on the death of Dahyabhai, and the names of his heirs were entered in the revenue record. It is the case of the petitioners that during the lifetime of the four sons of Ranchhodbhai Makanji Desai, an Arbitrator was appointed for partition of the properties left by their father Ranchhodbhai Makanji Desai and accordingly the land in question had fallen into the share of Dahyabhai. The predecessor of the petitioners i.e. Bhikhubhai Narsibhai Desai purchased the said property by way of registered sale deed dated 2.6.1985 from Manchhaben alias Leelaben, Widow of Dahyabhai. An Entry being Entry No. 621 came to be made in the revenue record on 3.8.1985.

3. It is further case of the petitioners that after a period of about seven years, one of the sons of Ranchhodbhai Makanji Desai i.e. Chhotubhai challenged the three entries i.e. Entry Nos. 519, 620 and 621 by filing the RTS Appeal No. 49/1992 before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector vide the order dated 30.6.1993 allowed the said Appeal and directed the cancellation of the said there entries and remanded the case back to the Mamlatdar. Being aggrieved by the said order, the said Bhikhubhai Naranji Desai, father of the petitioners preferred a Revision Application being No. 162/1993 before the Collector, who vide the order dated 16.11.1994 allowed the same and directed to retain all the three entries in the revenue record. The aggrieved Chhotubhai, therefore, filed the Revision Application before the SSRD under Rule 108(6A) of the Land Revenue Rules, who vide the order dated 9.1.2004 partly allowed the said Revision Application, by directing to retain the Entry Nos. 519 and 620, however, directed to cancel the Entry No. 621. The petitioners, who are the heirs of deceased Bhikhubhai therefore, have filed the present petition so far as the said order relates to the cancellation of the Entry No. 621.

4. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the SSRD is dehors his powers under Rule 108 of the said Rules, inasmuch as he has decided the civil rights of the parties in RTS proceedings. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of Mithusinh Samrathsinh Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in 2006 (2) GLH 743 and in the case of Dudhiben Muljibhai Patel and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., he has submitted that the concerned authority is bound to make the entry when the information is given with regard to the purchase of the property through registered sale deed. Mr. Mehta has also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Gandabhai Dalpatbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1370, to submit that the revenue authority can not assume the j