JUDGMENT AND ORDER : N.V. Anjaria, J. Heard learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh with learned advocate Ms.Abha Makwana for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent - State and learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Ms.Vidhi Bhatt for the private respondents. 2. The challenge in this petition is directed against order dated 24.12.2012, passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad, in Revision Application No.77 of 2000 preferred by the petitioner herein. The Revision Application was dismissed, consequently order dated 17.04.2000 of the Collector, Ahmedabad, was maintained. 3. The dispute before the revenue authorities was in respect of Mutation Entry No.6440 in relation to land bearing Block Nos.562, 570 and 585 situated at village Dalod, Taluka Mandal. This entry was mutated on 22.09.1998 and was certified on 24.11.1998. Because of mutation and certification of Entry No.6440, the aggrieved private respondents herein - heirs of deceased Sonaji Nathuji, preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector, Viramgam, who allowed the appeal by his order dated 26.05.1999 and cancelled the entry in question. 3.1 As the present petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector, he preferred Revision Application, which was dismissed by the Collector on 17.04.2000. Thereafter came to be filed the present Revision Application culminating into the impugned order. 3.2 The case of the present petitioner was that Entry No.6440 was entered in the revenue record after following necessary procedure. It was the case that the petitioner was entitled to have his share in capacity of elder son of deceased Nathuji Savaji. On the other hand, the say of the private respondents was that the father received the land under the tenancy laws and the price payable was paid for which Entry No.5298 was certified. It was their case that thereafter their names were mutated in capacity of heirs. 3.3 It was further pointed out that Civil Suit No.60 of 1999 was instituted before the competent Civil Court at Viramgam by the petitioner claiming the share and possession right in the property, which suit was withdrawn by giving Purshish dated 06.02.2009. Another suit was instituted after eight years. 3.4 It was given out that subsequently the second suit was also instituted. It was further submitted that however for nine long years between 2009 to 2018, the petitioner did not act and remained indolent. 4. Another suit was instituted after eight years. 3.4 It was given out that subsequently the second suit was also instituted. It was further submitted that however for nine long years between 2009 to 2018, the petitioner did not act and remained indolent. 4. The petition was contested by filing the affidavit-in-reply by respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. This Court considered the impugned order of the revisional authority as well as the reasoning supplied by the authority. Also perused and looked into the orders of the Deputy Collector and the Collector. 5.1 From the facts available from record, it emerges that as back as on 16.06.1966, Mutation Entry No.5115 was entered in the revenue record showing the names of Sursangji Nathuji, Nathiben wife of Nathuji Savaji and other heirs. This land appears to have been given with tenancy rights on 13.05.1970 pursuant to which Entry No.5298 was mutated on 17.08.1970. Now it appears that Entry No.6440 was got mutated in the year 1998 which was after gap of 32 years on the ground that the name of the elder son of deceased Nathuji Savaji was omitted from being mentioned. It is this entry which is deleted from the revenue records. 5.2 The land was shown to have been received by the said Nathuji Savaji under the Tenancy Act. In this view, as rightly held by the revisional authority, the contention that in the Mutation Entry name of father of the petitioner was omitted or that Form No.9 was false could not hold good. The submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner could not be brushed aside lightly that if certificate in Form No.9 was bogus, the proper course was to file appeal before the competent tenancy authority. The petitioner did not take recourse to the legal remedies. He rather challenged the entry which was mutated in the year 1966 after gap of 32 years. The final decisive aspect which rendered the impugned orders without any infirmity was that notice under Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was not issued. 6. The ground of passage of 32 years in getting Mutation Entry No.6440 mutated and further ground that before mutating the said entry, notice under Section 135D of the Code was not given, are germane and legal grounds. They were properly applied by the revisional authority to dismiss the Revision Application. They were relevant considerations. 6. The ground of passage of 32 years in getting Mutation Entry No.6440 mutated and further ground that before mutating the said entry, notice under Section 135D of the Code was not given, are germane and legal grounds. They were properly applied by the revisional authority to dismiss the Revision Application. They were relevant considerations. This Court in exercising its jurisdiction is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the revisional authority. 7. In the aforesaid view, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. The petition is meritless and is dismissed.