N.V. Anjaria, J.

These petitions are cognate as they arise out of the same order.

1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishant Lalakiya for learned advocate Mr. Saurabh Patel for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.17769 of 2016, learned advocate Mr. Jigar Rawal for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.17993 of 2016, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for the State and its authorities, whereas learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for private respondents in both the petitions.

2. What is challenge in the petitions is order dated 15th February, 2016, passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad, in Revision Application No.76 of 2008. Thereby the revisional authority partially allowed the Revision Application of the private respondents herein, set aside order dated 23rd July, 2008 of the Collector, Surat and remanded the case.

3. The dispute dealt with by the revenue authorities culminating into the revisional proceedings as above, was in respect of Mutation Entries pertaining to land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 67 and 73 at village Ved, Taluka Surat. This land originally belonged to one Gopaldas Parshottamdas who expired on 04th February, 1971, whereupon names of the heirs of the deceased Gopaldas were entered for which Entry No.893 was mutated. The widow and son of Gopaldas died in the year 1986 and 2002, respectively, which left five heirs (1) Revaben D/o. Gopaldas, (2) Ramaben D/o. Gopaldas, (3) Kunjlataben D/o. Gopaldas, (4) Vimlaben D/o. Gopaldas and (5) Manjulaben D/o. Gopaldas, as the owners of the said land. These five persons executed a Power of Attorney dated 12th March, 2002 in favour of respondent No.12 Thakur Ghanshyam Devani.

3.1 Said respondent No.12 executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.17993 of 2016 Vaghjibhai Ghelabhai Bhagiya dated 21st March, 2003. Mutation Entry Nos.1189 and 1190 came to be made in the revenue records regarding this transaction.

3.2 It appears that the respondents instituted Civil Suit No. 195 of 2003 on 22nd July, 2003 before the competent Court at Surat. In that suit proceedings, interim relief of maintenance of status quo as granted by the Appellate Court is operative and the Civil Suit is pending. The heirs of the original owners respondent No.1 and others objected to the aforesaid entries and started the proceedings before the Mamlatdar by instituting Case No.17 of 2003. The Mamlatdar cancelled the two entries. Further appeal was filed before the Deputy Collector, who confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar. The matter was not carried further.

3.3 It appears that the present petitioner again applied before the Mamlatdar for mutation of entry on the basis of the aforesaid registered Sale Deed dated 21st March, 2003. On 02nd April, 2007, the Mamlatdar made Entry Nos.1380 and 1381 in the revenue records, which entries were certified on 07th May, 2007. Again said Ramaben Gopaldas -private respondent raised objection to the said entry.

3.4 The Collector held that Entry Nos.1380 and 1381 were required to be mutated subject to the final outcome of the Civil Suit. The Collector passed such order on 23rd July, 2008. The respondents, however, felt aggrieved by the said order dated 23rd July, 2008 filed Revision Application No.76 of 2008 before the revisional authority which is the order impugned in this petition.

3.5 The petitioner of second Special Civil Application No.17769 of 2016 purchased the land in question from the Power of Attorney-holder of the petitioner of the first petition by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 08th May, 2007, for which Entry No.1389 was mutated. After the Collector upheld the validity of the Revenue Entry Nos.1380 and 1381 above and the Revision Application was filed by the respondents, the petitioner of other petition Nagjanbhai Arjanbhai Vadher made an application before the revisional authority to become a party. It appears that he was permitted to be added as pa