Judgment K.M. Thaker, J.—The present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 2.9.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No. 1581 of 2009. By the order impugned in the present appeal the learned Single Judge has rejected the petition and confirmed the orders passed by the Revisional Authority and by the Collector. 2. The appellant, who is the original petitioner, had challenged the order dated 8.4.2008 passed by the Revisional Authority viz. Secretary (Disputes) in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/RJT/1/01 (Annexure-E, Page 62/A) which was filed by present appellant. The Revisional Authority, by order dated 8.4.2008 rejected the said Revision Application and confirmed the order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the Collector in Land (revision) Case No. 2/2000-2001. The said proceedings before the Collector were filed by present Respondent No. 1. The dispute considered by the aforesaid authorities arose from Revenue Entry No. 1914 made in respect of two parcels of land bearing Survey No. 227 and Survey No. 1249 situate at Moje Madhapar, Taluka Morbi. So as to consider the crux of the issue, it would be necessary to address certain factual background. 3. It comes out from the record that one Shri Devshibhai Devabhai owned aforesaid land bearing Survey No. 227 and Survey No. 1249 at Madhapar, Morbi. During his life time said Mr. Devshibhai appears to have partitioned the properties including the said lands and thereafter requested the authority to make necessary entry in the revenue record and that therefore the Talati made entry on 1.1.1982 and simultaneously issued notice under Section 135D and commenced the proceedings. The said entry and notice under Section 135D resulted into litigation between the appellant petitioner on one hand and the Respondent No. 1 on the other hand. The proceedings which commenced after notice under Section 135D came to be decided by Mamlatdar by order dated 20.11.1982 whereby the objections raised by present Respondent No. 1 were rejected and joint entry in the name of present appellant Nos. 1 to 3 was confirmed. After entire round of litigation in connection with the said entry No. 1914, the case was again placed before the Mamlatdar, Morbi who heard and decided the matter by order dated 15.12.1999 and certified the entry No. 1914. 1 to 3 was confirmed. After entire round of litigation in connection with the said entry No. 1914, the case was again placed before the Mamlatdar, Morbi who heard and decided the matter by order dated 15.12.1999 and certified the entry No. 1914. What is pertinent to be noted is that the Mamlatdar passed the said order dated 15.12.1999 by taking into account the settlement dated 25.2.1980 said to have been arrived at between the parties in Civil Proceedings viz. Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 which was filed by preset Respondent No. 1 claiming 1/6th share in the properties in question. We shall deal with the said order dated 25.2.1980 in the Civil Proceedings little later, after noting the events connected with the revenue proceedings. 4. The aforesaid order dated 15.12.1999(confirming and certifying the entry No. 1914) was carried in revision application before the Collector, by present Respondent No. 1. The Collector after hearing the contesting parties passed the order dated 20.12.2000 whereby he allowed the revision application preferred by present Respondent No. 1. The Collector proceeded on the premise that the copy of the judgment and/or order and/or decree passed by the Civil Court in the Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 (wherein purportedly the settlement between the parties was arrived at) was not placed on record either before the original authority viz. Mamlatdar. It was not brought on record even before the Collector. The Collector set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar since it was passed without Civil Court’s judgment and decree being on record. The appellant petitioner was aggrieved by the said order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the Collector. The appellant petitioner carried the said order dated 20.12.2000 in revision application before the Secretary (Disputes). The revisional authority, after hearing the parties, passed the order dated 8.4.2008 rejecting the revision application and confirmed the order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the Collector. Aggrieved by the said order dated 8.4.2008 passed by the Secretary, present appellant petitioner preferred the subject writ petition which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order impugned in the present Appeal. 5. Ordinarily against the concurrent orders passed by the Collector and the Revisional Authority and confirmed by the learned Single, the Letters Patent Appeal would not be entertained. 5. Ordinarily against the concurrent orders passed by the Collector and the Revisional Authority and confirmed by the learned Single, the Letters Patent Appeal would not be entertained. However, having regard to certain material factual aspects, which we propose to discuss hereafter, we consider it appropriate to entertain the appeal and hear the parties. Hence, notices were issued. Like before the learned Single Judge, before us also the Respondent No. 1 has appeared as ‘party-in-person’. 6. Since the Respondent No. 1 has appeared as party in person, though the dispute essentially concerns private parties (viz. the appellant petitioner and Respondent No. 1) we have called upon, and extensively heard, the learned AGP so that on any technical aspect the Respondent No. 1 may not be put at disadvantage. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant petitioner has submitted that the Collector in the revisional authority failed to take into account the settlement arrived at between the parties and placed on record of the Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 which was withdrawn, (in view of the settlement) by present respondent No.1, who was the plaintiff in the said suit. He further submitted that even thereafter another suit being Civil Suit No. 432 of 1987 was filed by the Respondent No. 1 seeking relief that the settlement dated 25.2.1980 (in view of which the Suit No. 43 of 1980 was withdrawn and dispose of) may be declared to be not binding on him since his signature was obtained by misdirecting him. The Counsel for the appellant petitioner submitted that though in the subsequent suit No. 432 of 1987 the Civil Court declined to grant the declaration as prayed for and rejected the suit, the Collector as well as the revisional authority failed to appreciate that the respondent No.1 was not justified in denying the settlement or opposing the Mamladar’s order. Learned Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the orders passed by the Collector and the revisional authority and the order passed by the Mamlatdar ought to have been restored. As against the said submission the Respondent No. 1 has emphasized that the settlement pursis dated 25.2.1980 (Exh. 14 in suit No. 43 of 1980) was signed by only four persons whereas there are six concerned and interested persons. As against the said submission the Respondent No. 1 has emphasized that the settlement pursis dated 25.2.1980 (Exh. 14 in suit No. 43 of 1980) was signed by only four persons whereas there are six concerned and interested persons. He also submitted that the said pursis dated 25.2.1980 does not bear signature of the learned Judge and that therefore also the same should not be recognized. In effect, the Respondent No. 1 has contended that the said settlement should not be given effect to. The learned AGP has taken us through the orders passed by the Mamlatdar as well as the orders passed by the Collector and the revisional authority and submitted that it seem that the Court had not passed any order on the pursis dated 25.2.1980 and in absence of any order of the competent Civil Court, the Collector did not confirm the Mamlatdar’s order which was passed on the basis of the purported settlement. 8. It is the aforesaid judgment and order dated 28.4.1992 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 432 of 1987 (which was filed by the present Respondent No. 1) which is the crucial and distinguishing feature in present proceedings. After full fledged hearing and after replying almost 10 issues framed during the proceedings and upon considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the plaintiff i.e. present Respondent No. 1 failed to establish that the settlement was arrived at by misdirecting by plaintiff Respondent No. 1. The trial Court declined to grant judgment that the settlement would not be binding to the plaintiff (i.e. present Respondent No. 1). Accordingly, the trial Court, by the judgment dated 28.4.1992 dismissed the suit No. 432 of 1987. Aggrieved by the said judgment Respondent No. 1 preferred appeal being Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1992 which also came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 10.9.1993. The present Respondent No. 1 filed Second Appeal in the High Court against the said judgment dated 10.9.1993. The High Court, after hearing the Second Appeal at length rejected the same by the order dated 30.3.1994. Accordingly the judgment dated 28.4.1992 in Suit No. 432 of 1987 attained finality as the judgment and order in Second Appeal do not appear to have been set aside by the Hon’bel Apex Court. 9. The Respondent No. 1 had filed the objection in response to the notice under Section 135D. Accordingly the judgment dated 28.4.1992 in Suit No. 432 of 1987 attained finality as the judgment and order in Second Appeal do not appear to have been set aside by the Hon’bel Apex Court. 9. The Respondent No. 1 had filed the objection in response to the notice under Section 135D. The said objection came to be rejected by the Mamlatdar by order dated 20.11.1982 and the entry in favour of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 came to be confirmed. The said order has undergone the entire round of litigation and after completing the circle the matter was again placed before the Mamlatdar, Morbi. In the interregnum the Respondent No. 1 had filed a Civil Suit being Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 claiming 1/6th share in the properties in question. During the pendency of the said Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 a settlement was arrived at between the parties to the said litigation (i.e. Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980). 10. It transpires that in view of the said settlement the Respondent No. 1 was paid Rs. 15,000/- and a property being the house was also placed in his share and in consideration of the payment of Rs. 15,000/- and the house, the Respondent No. 1 had relinquished his share in other ancestral properties including the property in question/land. 11. The said settlement was placed on the Court’s record pertaining to the Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 (filed by Respondent No. 1) along with a separate pursis (exhibit 14) by which the present Respondent No. 1 (i.e. the plaintiff in suit No. 43 of 1980) sought permission of the Court to withdraw the suit. The permission was granted and the suit was allowed to be withdrawn. The rojkam/record of the proceedings of 25.2.1980 contains below mentioned noting by the learned Judge:— ‘Dt. 25.2.80 Proceeding’s Copy. Dt. 25.2.80 today is date for this matter. Plaintiff and Defts. are present. Plaintiff have given withdrawal pursis on Ex. 14 - In Ex. 14 order passed and suit is disposed off. Sd/- Illegible Civil Judge (Sn. Dn.) Morvi.’ 12. Accordingly the said suit was disposed off and the proceedings came to an end. 13. 25.2.80 Proceeding’s Copy. Dt. 25.2.80 today is date for this matter. Plaintiff and Defts. are present. Plaintiff have given withdrawal pursis on Ex. 14 - In Ex. 14 order passed and suit is disposed off. Sd/- Illegible Civil Judge (Sn. Dn.) Morvi.’ 12. Accordingly the said suit was disposed off and the proceedings came to an end. 13. When the revenue proceedings were again placed before the Mamlatdar, the aforesaid record pertaining to the Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980, including the settlement and the order recorded in the rojkam, was placed before the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar, thereafter, passed the order dated 15.12.1999 and confirmed the above mentioned entry No. 1914. From the perusal of the said order dated 15.12.1999 it becomes clear that evidence was recorded before the Mamlatdar and after examining the evidence the Mamlatdar had recorded in the order dated 15.12.1999 the terms of settlement viz. payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the Respondent No. 1 (including the page number of the case paper at which the detail of the settlement obtained) and the house in consideration of which the Respondent No. 1 had agreed to forgo and drop his share from ancestral properties including the property in question/land. The Magistrate also noted the signature of the learned Judge on the copy of the settlement placed on record and after examining the record the Magistrate found the submissions and the allegations made by the Respondent No. 1 unsustainable. The stand of the Respondent No. 1 is contradictory inasmuch as at one stage the Respondent No. 1 has claimed that the settlement was arrived at and his signature was obtained by misdirecting him or by misrepresenting and fraud whereas at another stage he has claimed that he had not signed the settlement/pursis. We have examined the order of the Magistrate and noticed that it is after carefully examining the record that the learned Magistrate recorded the factual aspects in detail and on that basis recorded specific findings and rejected the claim of the Respondent No. 1 that the settlement/pursis did not bear his signature. The Respondent No. 1 and/or learned AGP have not pointed out any material from the record which could dislodge the finding recorded by the Magistrate in the said order dated 15.12.1999 by which the Mamlatdar confirmed the entry No. 1914. 14. Aggrieved by the said order the Respondent No. 1 filed appeal-revision before the Collector. The Respondent No. 1 and/or learned AGP have not pointed out any material from the record which could dislodge the finding recorded by the Magistrate in the said order dated 15.12.1999 by which the Mamlatdar confirmed the entry No. 1914. 14. Aggrieved by the said order the Respondent No. 1 filed appeal-revision before the Collector. The Collector, noticed that though the order of the Civil Court with regard to the Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 was not on record the Mamlatdar had passed the order and therefore, held that in absence of the order of the Court with regard to the suit, the Mamlatdar could not have recognized the factum about the settlement and could not have proceeded on that premise. The Collector, therefore allowed the revision application. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the appellants preferred revision application before the Secretary (Revenue) also proceeded on the same premise i.e. that in absence of Civil Court’s order with regard to Suit No. 43 of 1980, the settlement could not have been given effect and rejected revision application and confirmed the Collector’s order. 15. It is in light of the aforesaid two orders (by the Collector and the revisional authority) that the fact regarding subsequent suit i.e. suit No. 432 of 1987, filed by the Respondent No. 1 becomes relevant. 16. It is pertinent that in the said subsequent Civil Suit No. 432 of 1987 the Respondent No. 1 claimed declaration that the settlement dated 25.2.1980 is not binding to him. In the said suit proceedings the learned Trial Court framed as many as 12 issues. The evidence was recorded and submissions and diverse contentions were raised. After considering the evidence and contention learned Trial Court recorded specific finding that the plaintiff could not prove that the settlement was brought about by fraud. The Court also noted that the plaintiff had agreed, in consideration of payment Rs. 15,000/- and a house, to forgo all his claims, rights etc. with regard to title and possession or rights in any all other ancestral properties. The learned Trial Court, accordingly, declined the declaration prayed for by the present Respondent No. 1 and rejected the suit by judgment dated 28.4.1992. 17. 15,000/- and a house, to forgo all his claims, rights etc. with regard to title and possession or rights in any all other ancestral properties. The learned Trial Court, accordingly, declined the declaration prayed for by the present Respondent No. 1 and rejected the suit by judgment dated 28.4.1992. 17. Aggrieved by the said judgment the Respondent No. 1 had filed Appeal No. 6 of 1992 which also came to be rejected by the first appellate Court by judgment dated 10.9.1993 wherein the first appellate Court has recorded that:— “...Exh. 61 is the certified copy of the withdrawal pursis of Civil Suit No. 43 of 80. As per recitals of the said pursis, the defendant No. 1 has executed the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of one residential house and the plaintiff has waived his share from the property and on this ground, the plaintiff has withdrawn Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 on 25.2.1980. The said pursis bears the signature of the plaintiff i.e. Kanji Devsi and the defendants Devshi. As per certified copy of the Rojkam of Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 Exhibit 53, on 25.2.1980, parties of the suit were present before the Court and by pursis Exh. 14, plaintiff has withdrawn the suit...... In his cross - examination at Para 7 the plaintiff has admitted that due to compromise, his father has given gift of a house and the plaintiff has also admitted that he sold out the said house for Rs. 40,000/- to Ganubhai Master in the year 1980.....It is come out from the deposition of the plaintiff before the Mamlatdar that the settlement in respect of ancestral property has been taken place between the plaintiff and defendants in Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 and the plaintiff has waived his share by taking Rs. 15,000/- from his father. The said fact also come out from the deposition of Devshi Deva..... In that suit, compromise between plaintiff and defendants was taken place and as per instruction of parties, he had written pursis at Exh. 61 and it bears the signature of the parties and it was submitted before the Judge in his chamber. By oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiff has failed to establish that his signature on withdrawal pursis of Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 was obtained by the defendants under misrepresentation and by fraud...... 61 and it bears the signature of the parties and it was submitted before the Judge in his chamber. By oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiff has failed to establish that his signature on withdrawal pursis of Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 was obtained by the defendants under misrepresentation and by fraud...... I have no reason to disbelieve that the plaintiff has waived his right from the property by taking Rs. 15,000/- and house from his father. As per evidence, the plaintiff has already sold out the said house for Rs. 40,000/-...... It is not necessary to pass detail order when plaintiff withdraw suit unconditionally. In the case of compromise, when parties of the suit wish to pass consent decree, then and then the court has to pass order below the compromise pursis. In the present case, it appears from the withdrawal pursis Ex. 61 that by narrating the facts of the compromise with the defendants and plaintiffs have withdrawn the suit unconditionally and without prayer of passing consent decree, so in that circumstances, the legality which is challenged by the learned advocate for the appellant seems not tenable. In the present case, Court has not passed any decree in terms of compromise but the court has only recorded withdrawal pursis which is submitted by the plaintiff and defendants before the Civil Judge (S.D.) Morvi.” 18. In the said judgment, the learned trial Court and the first appellate Court have expressly addressed the issue about the order in earlier Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 and have noted that as per the practice and procedure adopted in the Court, when a suit is sought to be withdrawn and the plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit, another order or decree are not passed. The said observation by the learned trial Court and the first appellate Court would find support from the definition of the term ‘decree’ under Section 2(2) of the Code which defines the said term to mean ‘formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determine the rights.......” 19. The said observation by the learned trial Court and the first appellate Court would find support from the definition of the term ‘decree’ under Section 2(2) of the Code which defines the said term to mean ‘formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determine the rights.......” 19. Besides this, when the Respondent No. 1 himself had prayed for adjudication and determination of the issue that the settlement in the suit No. 43 of 1980 is not binding to him and when the said relief came to be rejected after recording the finding that the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) failed to prove that the settlement was brought about per force or by misrepresenting, the shortfall of the order with regard to the Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980 would become insignificant and the order in Suit No. 432 of 1987, as confirmed in appeal No. 6 of 1992 would take its place. Furthermore, even otherwise the record of the proceedings as recorded in the rojkam dated 25.2.1980 in the Civil Suit No. 43 of 1980, is in the facts of the case, required to be read conjointly with the pursis exhibit 14 dated 25.2.1980 containing the request to withdraw the suit inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has, while recording the proceedings recorded that ‘in exhibit 14 order passed and suit is disposed off’. Thus, the Collector and the revisional authority are not justified in proceedings on the premise that in absence of any order by the Court, the factum of the settlement could not have been recognized. The said authorities have missed the point that the record and proceedings dated 25.2.1980 was required to be read conjointly with exhibit 14 and also in light of the judgment by the learned trial Court as confirmed by the first appellate Court in subsequent proceedings being Civil Suit No. 432 of 1987 and Appeal No. 6 of 1992. 20. In this view of the matter, the orders dated 20.12.2000 and 8.4.2008 passed by the Collector and the revisional authority respectively are not sustainable and deserve to be set aside. Therefore, we have to also set aside the order by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition challenging the orders of the Collector and revisional authority. Therefore, we have to also set aside the order by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition challenging the orders of the Collector and revisional authority. In the facts of the case the proceedings shall have to be remitted to the Collector for appropriate orders in light of the discussion in present order. 21. Hence, following order is passed 22. The order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the Collector and order dated 8.4.2008 passed by the Secretary (Revenue) are set aside. The order dated 2.9.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge is also set aside. The proceedings are directed to be remitted to the Collector with a direction to pass fresh appropriate order after taking into account the discussion in present order and then to issue direction with regard to the entry to be made in the revenue record. With the above clarification and direction, the appeal stands disposed of.