N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Anshin Desai with learned advocate Mr.Shakti Jadeja for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent State and its authorities, whereas learned advocate Mr.Vimal Patel with learned advocate Mr.Hitesh Patel for private respondent No.5.

2. The challenge in this petition is directed against order dated 15th December, 2017 passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) , Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.01 of 2017 preferred by the petitioner herein. Thereby the revisional authority dismissed the Revision Application and confirmed order dated 25th October, 2016 of Collector.

3. The dispute dealt with by the revenue authorities pertained to Mutation Entry No.425 which was made in the revenue records on 11th December, 1987 and came to be certified on 14th January, 1988 in connection with the land bearing Survey No.62 situated at Village Mota Mava, Taluka Rajkot. Noticing from the record of the petition the attendant facts, the said alnd stood in the name of one Maheshkumar Shantilal Parekh the father of the petitioner as well as respondent No.7 Himanshu Maheshkumar Parekh. It appears that upon death of said Maheshkumar on 02nd July, 1987, Mutation Entry No.424 was entered whereby name of the petitioner daughter Rajeshriben Maheshkumar Parekh as well as name of brother/son Himanshu Maheshkumar Parekh and wife Mrudula Parekh were entered in respect of the land in the revenue records. On the same day, second Entry No.425 was posted whereby name of the petitioner and mother Mrudula Parekh came to be deleted. It was on the basis that the petitioner and said Mrudulaben executed and submitted a kabuliyatnama relinquishing their share from the land.

3.1 The petitioner felt aggrieved and filed Appeal No.136 of 2015 before the Deputy Collector under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules. By order dated 24th May, 2016, the objection of the petitioner were upheld by the Deputy Collector and Entry No.425 was annulled. Also came to be cancelled the subsequent consequential Entries. The case of the petitioner for objecting to the Entry No.425 was that she had no knowledge, that she had scant legal knowledge and that the deletion of their names was fraudulent act.

3.2 After the said Entry No.425, Himanshu Maheshkumar executed a registered Gift Deed to give away land to his nephew. Against the order of the Deputy Collector, Revision No.58 of 2016 was preferred by Darshan Kiritkumar and Baudhik Kiritkumar who were the persons in whose favour gift was executed. The Collector allowed the Revision Application by order dated 25th October, 2016 and set aside order dated 23rd August, 2016 of the Deputy Collector. Thereafter came to be filed Revision Application No.01 of 2017 by petitioner Rajeshriben to culminated into the impugned order of dismissal of the Revision Application.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, the impugned order of revisional authority was vehemently assailed to submit that the Mutation Entry No.425 which was made on record on the same date when Mutation Entry No.424 was made, was fraudulent change in the revenue record. It was submitted that notice under Section 135(D) was not served on the petitioner. It was submitted that at that time the petitioner was only 14 years of age and her status of not being major was unduly capitalised to wrongfully suggest that share was relinquished. It was submitted that the petitioner was claiming right in the property on the basis of heir ship. It was submitted that the declaration in form of kabuliyatnama was not binding as was contrary to Section 17(1) (b) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act.

4.1 It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.7 instituted Regular Civil Suit No.221 of 2010 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, for declaration that Gift Deed dated 30th March, 2000 was bad and void and that it was a for