Appellate authorities must formally decide applications for condonation of delay before adjudicating an appeal on its merits. Failure to do so renders the order legally invalid. Additionally, revenue entries are strictly for fiscal utility and do not constitute evidence of legal title to property.

JUDGMENT :

VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. Devanshiba Rana, learned AGP waives service of rule for and on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Harshal S. Patel, learned advocate waives service of rule for and on behalf of the private respondent Nos.4 to 6.

2. Heard Mr. P.S. Datta, learned advocate appearing for Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Devanshiba Rana, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State authorities and Mr. Harshal S. Patel, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Tushar Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent Nos.4 to 6.

3. By way of present petition, the petitioners herein have invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 - Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), Ahmedabad, in Revision Application No.HKP/VAD/48/2016 and the order dated 29.11.2015 passed by the respondent – District Collector, Vadodara, in RTS Revision Application No.243 of 2014 and the order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, Vadodara, whereby, the respondent authorities concurrently cancelled the mutation entry No.2562, certified on 26.12.2008 in favour of the petitioners herein. The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the present petition having prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/NVS/23 of 2017 (at ANNEXURE- H hereto) as well as the order dated 29.11.2015 passed by the respondent-District Collector, Vadodara passed in RTS/RA/243/2014 (at Annexure- F hereto) as well as order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, Karjan (at Annexure - D hereto);

(B) During pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/NVS/23 of 2017 (at ANNEXURE- H hereto) as well as the order dated 29.11.2015 passed by the respondent-District Collector, Vadodara passed in RTS/RA/243/2014 (at Annexure- F hereto) as well as order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, Karjan (at Annexure - D hereto); and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain status quo with regard to the land in question;

(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus:

4.1 The dispute pertains to land bearing Survey/Block No.176, Khata No.218, situated at Mouje : Chorbhuj, Taluka : Karjan, District : Vadodara, admeasuring 12 Acres and 19 Gunthas (for short ‘the subject land’), which originally belonged to one Bhikhubhai Suleman Jamadar. A portion of land admeasuring 6 Acres and 9 Gunthas was given to Abbas Bhikhubhai Jamadar, the petitioner No.1 herein wherein, entry No.1145 was mutated in the revenue record on 15.10.198