ORDER : J.B. PARDIWALA, J. 1. The draft amendment is allowed. The same shall be carried out forthwith. 2. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 11th April 2017, by which the Special Secretary of the Revenue Department (Appeals) at Ahmedabad rejected the revision application filed by the applicants, thereby affirming the order passed by the Collector dated 12th October 2015. 3. The dispute between the parties pertains to mutation of entry bearing survey No. 1486 dated 3rd November 1993. The case of the applicants herein is that they have right, title and interest in the land in question and they had not relinquished their share in the property at any point of time in favour of the private respondents. The entry bearing survey No. 1486 came to be certified by the Mamlatdar on 3rd November 1993. 4. For the first time, after a period of almost nineteen years, the applicants questioned the entry before the Deputy Collector. Indisputably, the appeal was filed questioning the entry without filing any application for condonation of delay. There is a statutory time period prescribed in the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1972, for the purpose of filing an appeal. 5. It appears that the Deputy Collector, without going into the merits of the matter, whether any case had been made out for condonation of delay or not, entered into the merits and cancelled the entry. 6. Being dissatisfied with such order passed by the Deputy Collector, the private respondents preferred a revision application before the Collector and the Collector quashed the order passed by the Deputy Collector. The matter, ultimately, reached before the S.S.R.D. The S.S.R.D. in its impugned order, has observed as under: “That upon considering the revision application of the applicant, written submissions, written submissions of the opponent No. 4, the impugned order of the Collector, it appears that mutation entry no. 1486 has been entered in the revenue record on 3-11-93 in respect of the land of mouje: Lavacha, Taluka: Pardi The said mutation entry has been certified by the Mamlatdar, Pardi. 1486 has been entered in the revenue record on 3-11-93 in respect of the land of mouje: Lavacha, Taluka: Pardi The said mutation entry has been certified by the Mamlatdar, Pardi. That upon perusal of the said entry, it appears that on demise of Chhaganbhai Kuvariyabhai, out of his five direct heirs, Manchiben, widow of the deceased and three daughters (1) Parvatiben, (2) Bhanuben, (3) kokilaben have relinquished their rights, share and possession in favour of Premilaben and upon giving their consent reply, their names have not been entered in the said property. The Mamlatdar has legally certified the entry after examining the documentary evidence like Pedhinama, reply of the parties. The applicants have challenged the mutation entry after a long period of 19 years from the date of certification of the entry. The bar of limitation act applies. In these facts, the order of the Mamlatdar, Pardi certifying the succession mutation entry no. 1486 dated 3.11.1993 seems to be legal and therefore the order of the Deputy Collector seems to be erroneous and without proper verification, requires to be cancelled, for which the finding of the Collector seems to be proper. Because at the relevant point of time, the widow wife and daughters have relinquished their rights. Upon giving consent, after following legal procedure and after service of consent and the notices, the entry has been certified. Which has been challenged after a long period of 19 years. The reasonable cause of delay not known. Equity helps the vigilant. For this, the bar of estoppel also applies. For this, the law laid down in 2010 (3) GLR is required to be noted. Moreover, in this regard, the Special Civil Application No. 1576/2016 is pending. The interim and final order has to be implemented strictly. Therefore, the submissions of the applicant not being acceptable, the following order is passed.” 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the S.S.R.D. in passing the impugned order. No interference is warranted in exercise of my supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The proceedings before me are revenue in nature. The dispute pertains to mutation of names in the record of rights. No interference is warranted in exercise of my supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The proceedings before me are revenue in nature. The dispute pertains to mutation of names in the record of rights. This would not preclude the applicants to approach the Civil Court concerned and seek appropriate relief. I am saying so because it is a case of the applicants that they never relinquished their share in the property in favour of the private respondents. The applicants will have to seek a declaration in this regard from the competent Civil Court. 8. With the above, this application is disposed of.