JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of of rule on behalf of respondent No.1. Learned advocate Mr. Nirav Sanghavi waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 7.

2. This group of four petitions arising out of same facts and are raising identical issues, but are separately filed on account of separate orders passed by the revenue authorities in connection with separate revenue survey numbers. At the request of both the sides all the petitions are taken up for joint hearing and disposal. The facts are being recorded from the lead matter special civil application number 9793 of 2017.

3. This issue pertains to the directions to mention the names of the private respondents in the column of the second right in the village form No.7/12 in connection with the subject land of village Nava Taluka Himmatnagar.

4. This petition is filed challenging directions issued by the respondent revenue authorities by which the revenue authority has directed the entry of the names of private respondents in the column for second right in connection with the subject land of village: Nava, which came to be confirmed by the impugned order date 27.03.2017 by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals). The challenge is restricted only to the particular direction as in fact the impugned order confirms the order of the collector in favour of the petitioners, but while confirming the order of the collector, the impugned directions were issued.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that by issuing such a direction, the revenue authority namely the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has acted like a Civil Court in deciding the civil right of the private respondents. It is submitted that the revision was filed by the private respondents against the order of the Collector, where the challenge was to only the order of the Collector against which despite there being no prayer for entering the names of the private respondents in the revenue record, the Secretary (Appeals) has traveled beyond the prayers made in the revision application and issued the impugned directions.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioners has taken this Court through the records of the case and submitted that the issue arose on account of the matrimonial discord between the petitioner No.1 and his wife respondent No.5 because of which, the respondent No.5 and respondent Nos.6 and 7 (son and daughter) started residing separately, but thereafter made their claim in the ancestral or self acquired property of the petitioner No.1. It is the case of the petitioners that as the petitioner No.1 is still alive, there is no question of making the entries on the ground of heirship and therefore, the revenue authorities have exceeded that jurisdiction by considering the rights of the private respondents under the principle of succession even when the succession has not even opened.

7. It is further submitted that even if the claim of the respondents is taken at a face value, then also such a claim would lie only against the properties of the petitioner No.1, but by the impugned direction, the rights of the other petitioners, who became the owners and occupiers of the subject land by way of heirship is also put under cloud.

8. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioners had challenged the decision of the Mamlatdar before the Collector and the Collector, by assigning detailed reasons, had held in favour of the petitioners. In the revision also, the Secretary (Appeals), on merits, confirmed the findings and conclusion given by the Collector. However, under the garb of protecting the interest of the private respondents, has issued the impugned direction, which is in fact, the realm of a Civil Court to decide upon the civil rights by way of succession, as claimed by the private respondents.

9. Learned advocate for the private respondents submitted that respondent Nos.5 to 7 being the wife and children of the petitioner No.1 respectively