ORDER : J.B. Pardiwala, J. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 18th March, 2017 passed by the S.S.R.D at Ahmedabad, by which, the S.S.R.D rejected the revision application filed by the applicants herein, thereby affirming the order dated 14th February, 2013 passed by the Collector, Rajkot. 2. The dispute pertains to an agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 102, 347 and 5/3, admeasuring 28 acres and 19 gunthas, situated at Mouje Sardar, Taluka & District: Rajkot. It appears from the materials on record that the land in question was originally owned by one Mavjibhai Jerambhai. Mavjibhai had five wives, out of which, he had divorced two wives and was staying with the other three wives. Out of his five marriages, he had no children. He had no brother or sister and, therefore, he treated his uncle's sons, namely, (I) Bachubhai Ramji (ii) Laxmanbhai Ramji and (iii) Mansukhbhai Nanji-son of Nanjibhai and the son of another uncle namely Bhavan Tida as his legal heirs. The petitioner No. 1 is the widow of Laxmanbhai Patel, and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of Laxmanbhai Patel. 3. At the time of promulgation, an entry bearing No. 150 dated 24.11.1955 came to be mutated in the name of Tidabhai Khodabhai Patel along with Mavjibhai Jerambhai with respect to the lands in question. After the demise of Mavjibhai Jerambhai on 16.9.1958, an entry No. 429 dated 3.11.1959 came to be mutated, by which, the name of Mavjibhai was deleted and the name of Tidabhai Khodabhai Patel was shown as the sole surviving heir of Mavjibhai. This entry came to be certified on 23.2.1960 It appears that Tidabhai passed away on 18.4.1970 and on his demise Entry No. 1055 dated 6.10.1970 came to be mutated, by which, his legal heirs were added in the record of rights. 4. With the aforesaid background, there are eight entires in dispute and questioned by the petitioners herein, i.e., the Entries Nos. 150, 429, 679, 1055, 1059, 5409, 5410 and 6072. It appears that all these entries came to be challenged by the petitioners herein by filing an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Rajkot essentially on the ground of fraud. The Deputy Collector, by his order dated 31.1.2011, declined to entertain the appeal only on the ground of delay. 150, 429, 679, 1055, 1059, 5409, 5410 and 6072. It appears that all these entries came to be challenged by the petitioners herein by filing an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Rajkot essentially on the ground of fraud. The Deputy Collector, by his order dated 31.1.2011, declined to entertain the appeal only on the ground of delay. The Deputy Collector, however, clarified that if there was any civil suit pending as on that date, then the outcome of the same would be binding to the parties. The petitioners herein, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy Collector, preferred a revision application before the Collector. The Collector, Rajkot, by his order dated 14.02.2013, rejected the revision application, thereby affirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Collector, went before the S.S.R.D, and the S.S.R.D also by an order dated 18.03.2017, rejected the revision application, observing as under. The free English translation of the observations are as under; “3.2 Upon considering the submission of the applicant, the dispute appears to be civil in nature. In present matter, the main dispute is about title. The submissions of the applicant are with regard to the veracity of the will and fraud. The entires in revenue record are for fiscal purpose. That cannot be the basis of evidence of title. Therefore, the limitation starts from the date of certification of the entry. The validity of the entries in the revenue record based on the document remains intact unless the same is proved wrong. The entries in the revenue record does not derive any ownership or title. Only for recovery of the land revenue purpose, it is to be considered as primary evidence of possession. 3.3 The present applicant has filed the Civil Suit No. 165 of 2010 in which no supporting document is produced to show that injunction is obtained. The Collector has recorded in the impugned order that the Special Civil Suit No. 1650 of 2010, Misc. Application No. 150 of 2011, police complaint, probate application No. 11 of 1967 and 41 of 2003 as well as other related proceedings at the different levels and before the Hon'ble Court, the matter is subjudice. The Collector has recorded in the impugned order that the Special Civil Suit No. 1650 of 2010, Misc. Application No. 150 of 2011, police complaint, probate application No. 11 of 1967 and 41 of 2003 as well as other related proceedings at the different levels and before the Hon'ble Court, the matter is subjudice. The applicants have sought relief right from 1955 promulgation entry till date revenue entries together after gross long period of 54 years, in which, has made request to condone the delay by making allegations of fraud and property ownership and partition which has not been accepted. 3.4 Hence, it appears that the applicants have not challenged at the relevant time starting right from the original promulgation entry no. 150 dated 24.11.1955 and thereafter successive entries effected upon section 135(d) of the Land Revenue Code procedure. The submission of the applicant is not required to be accepted. However, since civil suit is pending between the parties, therefore, the decision of the civil court would be binding upon the parties. The jurisdiction of the revenue authorities is limited to maintenance of the record and entries. The revenue court cannot decide regarding the sale and purchase, legality and validity of the documents. Considering the fact that the ownership rights can be decided by the civil court, the grounds raised in the application of revision of applicants cannot be accepted. The Collector has taken into consideration all these facts and having challenged the entries after delay of 55 years, has rightly and legally not entertained the revision application of the applicant. Therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order, following order is passed.” 5. Being dissatisfied with the concurrent findings recorded by the three revenue authorities, the applicants are here invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The principle argument of Mr. Kakkad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that if fraud is played upon, then all the consequential action would be a nullity and in such circumstances, the delay should not defeat the rights of the petitioners. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the authorities committed any error in passing the impugned orders. 8. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the authorities committed any error in passing the impugned orders. 8. Without going into the merits or de-merits of the impugned orders, I take notice of the fact that the petitioners have filed a special civil suit being Special Civil Suit No. 165 of 2010 in the court of the learned 7th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot for partition, declaration and permanent injunction so far as the land in question is concerned. It also appears that the petitioners prayed for injunction below Exh. 5 and the same has been declined by the Civil Judge. Against the order passed by the Civil Judge, rejecting the application Exh. 5, an Appeal from Order has been filed before this Court and I am told that the same is pending as on date. Since the dispute is with regard to the mutation of the entries in the record of rights and those entries are of the decades of 50s, 70s and later on, I would not like to disturb the findings recorded by the revenue authorities and leave it for the civil court to look into all the relevant aspects of the matter, more particularly, the fraud alleged by the petitioners. The suit is of the year 2010 and I am sure the same must be now rise for hearing. Even otherwise, entries in the record of rights are for fiscal purposes. It does not confer any right, title or interest over the property in question. As the petitioners are asserting their own rights in the disputed property, they will have to get a declaration in this regard from the civil court in the civil suit filed by them. 9. In view of the above, this application fails and is hereby rejected. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot is directed to take up the Special Civil Suit No. 165 of 2010 for hearing and see to it that the recording of the evidence commences at the earliest. Let this suit be disposed of on or before 31st May, 2018 with judgment.