JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. M.K. Patel, learned advocate for private respondents, and Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP for the respondent - State. 2. In present petition, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that:- "11(A) Be pleased to pass an order quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) Gujarat State in Revision Application No. 2 of 2005 and order dated 23.1.2007 the same was despatched on 7.2.2007 at Ann.: G;" 2.1 The order dated 23.1.2007 passed by the Secretary (Appeals) in revision application No. 2 of 2005 is placed under challenge. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, the petitioners have narrated the facts in paragraph Nos. 2 to 6, which read thus:- "2. The petitioners are owner and occupier and in possession of the agricultural Land Revenue Survey No. 152, 153, 154/1 and 154/2 situated at village Kholwada, Taluka Siddhpur District Patan. 3. Wide Revenue Entry No. 213 above mentioned agricultural land and other land was mutated in the name of Bai Raji widow of Pinjara Shakur Babal. As this land was ancestral inherited property. Thereafter, wide Revenue Entry No. 596 out of above stated four agricultural fields i.e. land of revenue survey No. 152, 153, and 154/1 was transferred and mutated in the name of Pinjara Amirbhai Shakurbhai mentioning that he was protected tenant of Bai Raji widow of Shakur Babal Pinjara. Thereafter Revenue entry No. 767 dated 6.10.1957 was mutated and it was mentioned that Pinjara Amirbhai Shakurbhai was cultivating this three fields in the capacity of the owner. Hence, Revenue Entry No. 596 of protected tenant was cancelled. This entry was sanctioned and approved on dated 13.11.1957 by tenancy Aval Karkoon. Thereafter, revenue entry No. 872 was mutated in the name of Mariyamben widow of Pinjara Amirbhai Shakurbhai was entered because inquiry was closed wide letter No. ALT/91/92/93/94 dated 25.6.1960 as she is owner of above mentioned fore agricultural lands i.e. 152, 153, 154/1 and 154/2 this entry was sanctioned by the competent officer on dated 29.12.1963. After death of Mariyamben Amirbhai Pinjara (Mansuri) the above lands were mutated in the name of Mansuri Abdulbhai Amirbhai wide revenue entry No. 2778 dated 26.3.1998. Mariyamben was died on dated 26.6.1997. After death of Mariyamben Amirbhai Pinjara (Mansuri) the above lands were mutated in the name of Mansuri Abdulbhai Amirbhai wide revenue entry No. 2778 dated 26.3.1998. Mariyamben was died on dated 26.6.1997. In this way since more than thirty years the present petitioner No. 1 is in physical possession in the capacity of owner. A copy of the said Revenue Entries are annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE;A to this petition, and a copy of the form No. 7/12 also are annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE;B collectively to this petition. 4. One Mansuri Huriben daughter of Shakurbhai Babal Pinjara preferred R.T.S. Appeal Revision No. 2/1994 under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules 108(6) before the Collector of Mehsana through her power of Attorney holder Mansuri Abdulbhai Gafurbhai residing at Kholwada Taluka Siddhpur, District: Patan, Mansuri Huriben was also residing at Kholwada after her marriage this R.T.S. Appeal Revision was preferred against one Mansuri Mriyamben wd/o Amirbhai Shakurbhai and three others. A copy of the said R.T.S. Appeal/Revision Memo No. 2 of 1994 dated 1.1.1994 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE;C to this petition. The subject matter of the R.T.S. Appeal Revision was revenue entry No. 872 challenged and cancelled dated 26.2.1960. The protest was made by the Abdulbhai Amirbhai Mansuri son of the deceased Mariyamben Wd/o Amirbhai Shakurbhai Mansuri on dated 28.9.2004. A copy of the written statement dated 28.2.2004 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE;D to this petition. Thereafter, the District Collector, patan was pleased to order in R.T.S. Revision No. 2/1994 sanctioning partially, this R.T.S. Appeal. He was pleased to cancel revenue entry No. 596 and 872 and further ordered to make new entry by inserting all the name of the heirs. This order was passed on dated 20.12.2004. A copy of the order of the District Collector, patan in the R.T.S. Appeal Revision No. 2 of 1994 dated 20.12.2004 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE;E to this petition. 5. This order was passed on dated 20.12.2004. A copy of the order of the District Collector, patan in the R.T.S. Appeal Revision No. 2 of 1994 dated 20.12.2004 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE;E to this petition. 5. The petitioners state that, feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Collector Patan in R.T.S. Appeal No. 2 of 1994, the petitioners have preferred revision application immediately on 25.1.2005 before the Revenue Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad under the Provisions of Rules 108(6)(A) of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, vide Revision Application No. 2 of 2005. A copy of the said Revision Application dated 25.1.2005 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE;F to this petition. 6. Thereafter the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) was pleased to passed an order dated 23.1.2007 rejecting the revision application being Revision Application No. 2 of 2005 and directing to insert the name of the Legal Heirs by making new entry. This direction is given to the Mamlatdar, Siddhpur. A true copy of the abovesaid order is annexed the petition. The above said order was posted on 7.2.2007." 4. From above mentioned facts, it comes out that the dispute is between the relatives, i.e. heirs of two brothers. 4.1 According to the revisionist, he is son and heir of original owner whereas according to the opponent, the revisionist is son of another brother and he had no right either as successor or otherwise in respect of the land in question and that the revisionist misrepresented the facts and got certain entries mutated in the revenue record and therefore, the litigation commenced. 4.2 In this background, the proceedings were instituted before the Collector and feeling aggrieved by the Collector's order, present petitioners had preferred revision application. 4.3 The revisionist before the Secretary (Appeals) has filed present petition. Subsequently, heirs of the revisionist i.e. original petitioners joined the proceedings and they have been prosecuting the petition. 4.4 The revisionist filed the revision application feeling aggrieved by Collector's order dated 20.12.2004. 5. During hearing of present petition, Mr. 4.3 The revisionist before the Secretary (Appeals) has filed present petition. Subsequently, heirs of the revisionist i.e. original petitioners joined the proceedings and they have been prosecuting the petition. 4.4 The revisionist filed the revision application feeling aggrieved by Collector's order dated 20.12.2004. 5. During hearing of present petition, Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioners, assailed the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) mainly on the ground that though the Secretary (Appeals) recorded contentions raised by petitioners, the Secretary (Appeals) failed to deal with the said contentions and the Secretary (Appeals) has not recorded any reasons or conclusions with reference to the contentions raised by them i.e. revisionists. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioners, further contended that the revisionists assailed the order passed by the Collector on the ground that the revenue entry was mutated by Aval Karkoon and that therefore, the Collector would have no authority to pass order and the proceedings were instituted after inordinate delay of 34 years. He also claimed that the proceedings involve determination of civil/succession right, which could not have been determined by the Collector or by the Secretary (Appeals). Learned advocate for the petitioners contended that all contentions raised by the petitioners - revisionists have been recorded in the order, however, Secretary (Appeals) did not deal with the same and did not record any reasons for not accepting the said contentions. He, further, submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order and that the final direction is contrary to the observations in the award and that therefore also, the order deserves to be set aside. 6. Mr. M.K. Patel, learned advocate for private respondents, opposed the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners. According to learned advocate for the respondents, the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) is reasoned and speaking order. He further submitted that the revisionists - petitioners have no right, title or claim in the property in question and they misrepresented facts before the authority. Mr. According to learned advocate for the respondents, the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) is reasoned and speaking order. He further submitted that the revisionists - petitioners have no right, title or claim in the property in question and they misrepresented facts before the authority. Mr. Patel, learned advocate, also alleged that the revisionists submitted a fabricated and incorrect pedhinama and on strength of such fabricated document the entries came to be mutated in the record and the respondents were not aware about such action of the petitioners - revisionists and when the details came to the knowledge of the respondents, they initiated proceedings and that therefore, the proceedings instituted by the respondents cannot be brushed aside on the ground of delay. According to learned advocate for the respondents, the order passed by the Collector is justified and correct order which is based on relevant record and material and the Secretary (Appeals) has not committed any error in confirming the order passed by the Collector. 7. I have considered the submissions by learned advocates for the petitioners and the respondents. I have also considered material available on record, including the order passed by the Collector as well as the order passed by Secretary (Appeals). 8. Having regard to the facts of the case, more particularly the order passed by Secretary (Appeals), it has emerged that present petition can be disposed of on limited ground. It has also emerged that the proceedings deserve to be remanded for fresh consideration and fresh decision by the Secretary (Appeals). 9. On reading the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), it comes out that the petitioners had raised various and diverse contentions and objections including the contention about the authority and jurisdiction of the Collector to entertain application against revenue entry mutated in the revenue record. The petitioners - revisionists had specifically contended before the Secretary (Appeals) that the proceedings by way of appeal/revision against the entry would not lie before the Collector in view of the fact that the entry was mutated by Aval Karkoon and that therefore, the Collector could not have entertained the proceedings. 9.1 From the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), it also comes out that the petitioners - revisionists had raised contention on the ground of inordinate delay. 9.1 From the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), it also comes out that the petitioners - revisionists had raised contention on the ground of inordinate delay. It was claimed by the petitioners - revisionists that the opponents had raised dispute with reference to the entry, after delay of almost 34 years and that therefore, such proceedings should not have been entertained on the ground of delay. 9.2 From the impugned order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), it clearly comes out that the Secretary (Appeals) has not addressed and has not dealt with any contention raised by the petitioners. Further, the Secretary (Appeals) has also not recorded any findings either rejecting or accepting the said contention and has also not recorded reasons for not dealing with and/or for not deciding the contentions. 10. From the order by the Secretary (Appeals) and/or from the order by the Collector, it does not come out that the said authorities addressed even the issue about the delay in initiating the proceedings. 11. From the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners, it comes out that the disputed entry was mutated in 1990 whereas the respondents herein raised dispute with regard to such entry in 1994. 11.1 The petitioner therefore opposed the proceedings on the ground of delay, however, both the authorities have not dealt with the said contention and any reasons for not accepting the said contention are not recorded in the order. 12. Even the contention with regard to Collector's authority and jurisdiction to entertain application/appeal against the entry mutated by Aval Karkoon is also not recorded. The authority should have recorded his own findings and appropriate reasons in support of his decision, however, the authority cannot simply brush aside or ignored any contention raised by the appellant/revisionists. On the said limited ground, the impugned order stands vitiated and deserves to be set aside. Consequently, following order is passed:- "[a] The impugned order dated 23.1.2007 passed by the Secretary (Appeals) in revision application No. 2 of 2009 is set aside on aforesaid limited ground and the proceedings are remanded to the Secretary (Appeals) for re-consideration and fresh decision. On the said limited ground, the impugned order stands vitiated and deserves to be set aside. Consequently, following order is passed:- "[a] The impugned order dated 23.1.2007 passed by the Secretary (Appeals) in revision application No. 2 of 2009 is set aside on aforesaid limited ground and the proceedings are remanded to the Secretary (Appeals) for re-consideration and fresh decision. [b] The Secretary (Appeals) shall grant opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties and deal with all contentions raised by both sides and record his own findings as well as specific reasons in respect of each of the contentions raised by both sides and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law." With aforesaid observations and direction, present petition is partly allowed and the petition accordingly stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.