JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.G. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Trilok J. Patel, learned advocate for respondents No. 1.1 to 1.11 as well as Mr. Mehta, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 to 6. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: "(12)(c) PENDING ADMISSION, FINAL HEARING AND DISPOSAL of this petition, stay the implementation of the order dtd; 3.11.97 passed by Mamlatdar, Jetpur-Pavi in R.T.S. Case No. 29/95 which was confirmed by the 1. Deputy Collector, Chhota-udepur by its judgment and order dtd; 27.7.98 in R.T.S. Revision Application 5/98, 2. Collector, Vadodara by its Judgment & Order dtd: 25.4.2000 in R.T.S. Revision Appl. No. 118/98 and 3. Secretary, Revision Department (Appeals) Government of Gujarat, Ahmedabad by its Judgment and Order dtd: 20.7.2000 in Revision Application No. HKP/VDD/27/2000. (d) quash and set-aside the Order dtd; 3.11.97 passed by Mamlatdar, Jetpur-Pavi in R.T.S. Case No. 29/95, the Order dtd: 27.7.98 passed by Deputy Collector, Chhota-udepur in Revision Application No. 5/98, the order dtd: 25.4.2000 passed by Collector, Vadodara in R.T.S. Revision Application No. 118/98 and the Order dtd: 20.7.2000 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Government of Gujarat, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. HKP/VDD/27/2000." 3. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondents that according to the petitioner, he is owner of agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 184/1 and 184/2/A situate Village: Ghutanvad, Taluka: Jetpur Pavi, District: Vadodara. The petitioner has also claimed that he is in physical possession of the said land and he is tilling the said land. 3.1 It appears that respondent No. 1 herein had submitted an application dated 26.5.1991 (erroneously mentioned as 26.5.1981 in paragraph No. 3 of the memo of petition) to Mamlatdar, Jetpur Pavi with a request that his name may be entered in the record in second column as 'cultivator' in record of rights because he has been tilling and cultivating the agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 184/1 and 184/2/A since last 12 to 13 years. 3.2 The said application was initially disposed of vide order dated 7.10.1991. However, upon application by present respondent, the proceedings were restored and registered as RTS Case No. 29/95 and the application was adjudicated on merits. 3.3 The Mamlatdar recorded evidence and examined relevant documents. 184/1 and 184/2/A since last 12 to 13 years. 3.2 The said application was initially disposed of vide order dated 7.10.1991. However, upon application by present respondent, the proceedings were restored and registered as RTS Case No. 29/95 and the application was adjudicated on merits. 3.3 The Mamlatdar recorded evidence and examined relevant documents. After considering material available on record and rival submissions, the Mamlatdar allowed the application filed by the respondents vide its order dated 3.11.1997 with direction that name of the applicant (i.e. present respondent) may be entered into the record (as cultivator in second column). 3.4 Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 3.11.1997 passed by the Mamlatdar, present petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector heard the parties, considered the material on record and rejected the appeal vide its order dated 27.7.1998. 3.5 Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 27.7.1998 passed by the Deputy Collector, the petitioner herein filed RTS Revision Application before the Collector which was registered as RTS Revision Application No. 118 of 1998. The Collector also heard both the sides and after considering material available on record, the Collector rejected the revision application vide its order dated 25.4.2000. 3.6 Against the said order, the petitioner approached the Secretary (Appeals) with revision application which was registered as Revision Application No. 27 of 2000. During the proceedings before the Secretary (Appeals), it was pointed out that the original applicant, i.e. opponent in revision application (who is respondent in present petition) has taken out substantive proceedings for claiming tenancy rights and the said proceedings are pending before the competent authority. After hearing the revision application, the Secretary (Appeals) rejected the said application with clarification and observation that the decision with regard to recording of name of the applicant in the revenue record would be subject to final outcome in the tenancy proceedings. 3.7 Feeling aggrieved by four consecutive and concurrent orders against him, the petitioner has taken out present petition. 4. Mr. B.G. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the authorities failed to appreciate that the petitioner herein was cultivating the land personally and the respondent herein was engaged as labourer to help the petitioner in cultivating the land and therefore, the direction to enter his name as 'cultivator' could not and should not have been passed. 4. Mr. B.G. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the authorities failed to appreciate that the petitioner herein was cultivating the land personally and the respondent herein was engaged as labourer to help the petitioner in cultivating the land and therefore, the direction to enter his name as 'cultivator' could not and should not have been passed. Learned advocate for the petitioner made reference of the provisions under Section 4(b) and Section 6 of the Tenancy Act and submitted that the authorities have committed error in directing that the petitioner's name may be entered in the revenue record as cultivator in Column No. 2. 4.1 However, learned advocate for the petitioner could not offer any objection against the clarification by the Secretary (Appeals) in his order having regard to the fact that the substantive tenancy proceedings are pending and actually, the respondent's claim that he is a tenant, will be examined and decided by the competent tenancy court and the decision in RTS proceedings would not have any bearing or the said decision would not create any right in favour of the respondent. 5. Mr. Trilok J. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the respondent has placed several documents on record before the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector. The statements of witnesses have been recorded by the authorities, panchnamas have been drawn and other documents e.g. payment of revenue receipt acknowledgment, etc. by the respondent are also available on record of the authorities and it is in light of such documents and in view of such evidence available on record, that the authorities have recorded findings of fact that the respondent has been tilling and cultivating the agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 184/1 and 184/2/A since more than 13-14 years and thereafter the authorities directed that the respondent's name should be entered into the revenue records in Column No. 2 as cultivator and that there is no error in the order passed by the authorities. 6. I have considered rival submissions and I have also considered material available on record. I have also read the four orders passed by the authorities. 6.1 Besides this, I have also taken into consideration the Banakhat entered into between the parties in April 1976 as well as the reply affidavit filed by present respondent and the rejoinder filed by present petitioner. 7. I have also read the four orders passed by the authorities. 6.1 Besides this, I have also taken into consideration the Banakhat entered into between the parties in April 1976 as well as the reply affidavit filed by present respondent and the rejoinder filed by present petitioner. 7. At the outset, it is appropriate to mention that the order passed by the first adjudicating authority, i.e. Mamlatdar is a detailed and reasoned order where the authority has discussed at length the evidence which was placed on record by the contesting parties as well as rival contentions. 7.1 From the statements which were recorded on 24.7.1997, it has emerged that according to the said witnesses, Mr. Jaysinh Kishorsinh Solanki, i.e. respondent herein (original applicant before the Mamlatdar) was tilling and cultivating the land bearing Survey Nos. 184/1 and 184/2/A since about 20 years and that none of them had never cultivated, i.e. present petitioner or his brothers or sister-in-law or anybody, at the agricultural land. The witnesses also appear to have said before the authority that Thakorelal Sakarlal Shah, i.e. present petitioner resides in the same village, however, he does not own any equipments necessary for agriculture activity, whereas Mr. Jaysinh Kishorsinh Solanki, i.e. respondent herein, who is tilling and cultivating the land, owns and possesses all equipments and other material necessary for tilling and cultivating the land. The said person also appears to have said before the authority that Mr. Jaysinh Kishorsinh Solanki, i.e. respondent herein cultivates the land and that according to their knowledge, he does not part with crop to the land owner. The said details of evidence from the statements of witnesses are examined and recorded by the Mamlatdar in his order (pages 31 and 32 of present petition). 7.2 On reading the order passed by the Mamlatdar, it appears that the Mamlatdar has not only taken note of the said evidence but has also considered and discussed at length and he has dealt with the evidence and recorded reasons in support of his final conclusion. 7.3 The order dated 3.11.1997 passed by the Mamlatdar is passed after taking into account the oral as well as documentary evidence which were available before him and after discussing the pros and cons of the said witnesses on the said evidence. 7.3 The order dated 3.11.1997 passed by the Mamlatdar is passed after taking into account the oral as well as documentary evidence which were available before him and after discussing the pros and cons of the said witnesses on the said evidence. 7.4 From the record, it appears that any witness was not examined by the petitioner herein or any other contrary evidence was not placed on record by present petitioner before the Mamlatdar. 7.5 Actually, from the order passed by the Mamlatdar, it appears that on 15.9.1997 when the proceedings were scheduled for further hearing before the authority, the petitioner had not attended hearing and despite three calls by the Mamlatdar, the opponent, i.e. present petitioner did not attend the hearing before the Mamlatdar. 8. In the result, upon appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the Mamlatdar reached to the conclusion that the applicant - Mr. Jaysinh Kishorsinh Solanki has been cultivating the land in question personally since last about 20 years and has not been parting with any part of the crop to the land owner and the applicant - Mr. Jaysinh Kishorsinh Solanki pays revenue and is in physical possession of the land in question. Having reached to such conclusion, the Mamlatdar passed the order with direction that the applicant, i.e. Mr. Jaysinh Kishorsinh Solanki's name be included in Column No. 2 as cultivator. 9. As mentioned above, the said order passed by the Mamlatdar was carried in appeal, a revision and further revision before the Deputy Collector, Collector, Secretary (Appeals). The said three higher authorities after evaluating, assessing and appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence and contentions raised by the petitioner, reached to similar conclusion and the said three authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact. 10. Consequently, before this Court, consecutive and concurrent orders against the petitioner are challenged. Before all the three higher authorities, after the first adjudicating authority, i.e. the Mamlatdar, the petitioner has failed to convince the authorities that the Mamlatdar committed any error in its conclusion. The three higher authorities, i.e. appellate authority and revisional authority have reached to the same conclusion as that by the Mamlatdar. 11. Before all the three higher authorities, after the first adjudicating authority, i.e. the Mamlatdar, the petitioner has failed to convince the authorities that the Mamlatdar committed any error in its conclusion. The three higher authorities, i.e. appellate authority and revisional authority have reached to the same conclusion as that by the Mamlatdar. 11. The Deputy Collector, in his speaking and reasoned order dated 3.11.1997, has recorded that having regard to the panchnama and other material on record, it has emerged that the evidence completely favours the case of original applicant and there is no evidence on record which would support the case of the land owner, i.e. present petitioner. 11.1 Consequently, the Deputy Collector confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar. 12. Likewise, the Collector also reached to the similar conclusion on the basis of evidence available on record. The Collector has, upon appreciation of evidence, recorded that it has established that the physical possession of the land in question is with the original applicant. 12.1 The Collector has even taken a note of Banakhat dated 15.5.1981 entered into between the contesting parties. The Collector found on appreciation of the said document and other material available on record, all documents established that the possession was with the original applicant, i.e. present respondent. 13. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note that while the proceedings before the aforesaid authorities were pending, the petitioner had filed regular civil suit before the Civil Court for permanent injunction. The said suit was registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 97 of 1983. 13.1 In the said suit, the petitioner had taken out application for interim relief (Exh. 5). The learned trial Court [Civil Judge J.D.)] heard the said application for interim relief and rejected the said application, holding that the evidence is in favour of the opponent, i.e. present respondent. 13.2 The said order was unsuccessfully challenge before the learned appellate Court and thereafter in revision before the High Court. 13.3 Thus, before the learned Civil Court also, the petitioner failed to convince the learned Court for granting interim relief and the Courts in the said proceedings also, concurrently held that the balance of convenience is in favour of the opponent/defendant, i.e. present respondent. 14. Subsequently, the proceedings reached before the Secretary (Appeals) and the Secretary (Appeals) heard the parties and rejected the revision application vide its order dated 9.4.2001. 14. Subsequently, the proceedings reached before the Secretary (Appeals) and the Secretary (Appeals) heard the parties and rejected the revision application vide its order dated 9.4.2001. The said order is challenged in present petition. 15. Having regard to above mentioned facts and also having regard to the fact that all authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact and this Court will not re-appreciate the evidence and will not sit in appeal over the concurrent findings of fact recorded by four statutory authorities, this Court is of the view that there is no reason or justification to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the four authorities. Learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to establish that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the four authorities are perverse and even incorrect. Any material which would convince this Court that the findings of fact recorded by the authorities are perverse, is not shown from the record. 16. Besides this, in view of the fact that the actual dispute with regard to the right of tenancy is still pending before the Tenancy Court, even otherwise there is no reason or justification to interfere with the impugned order. 16.1 The Secretary (Appeals) has clarified in the order that the order in question as well as the direction to enter name of the respondent - Mr. Jaysinh Kishorsinh Solanki in the revenue record would be subject to the final outcome of the tenancy proceedings. 17. Therefore, the petition fails and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged. Petition Dismissed