JUDGMENT : Bela M. Trivedi, J. The subject land bearing Survey No.223/2 situated at Village Shingarva, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad being common in all the petitions, they were heard together with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties and this common judgment is being passed. 2. Though the petitions have chequered history, the broad undisputed facts as culled out from the record may be summarized as under:- 2.1 One Bawabhai Karsanbhai Waghela owned the agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos.223/2, 184/1, 185/2, 213 and 223/3 situated at Village Shingarva, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad. The subject land is Survey No.223/2. The said Bawabhai had two sons named Lalabhai Bawabhai and Mangaldas Bawabhai. The said Lalabhai had six daughters named Savitaben, Gangaben, Muliben, (who expired issue-less on 13.12.1997), Maghiben (who expired on 6.2.1969), Harkhuben (who expired on 19.5.1989), and Laxmiben (who expired on 2.10.1976). The said Mangaldas had two sons named Kalidas and Ganeshdas. The said Mangaldas expired on 3.8.1974. The said Lalabhai Bawabhai expired on 12.7.1993. 2.2. On 27.4.1979 an entry being No.1332 came to be recorded in the revenue record as regards the partition of properties belonging to Bawabhai Karsanbhai, showing Survey No.223/2 i.e. the subject land falling in the share of Lalabhai Bawabhai, and other Survey numbers bearing No.184/1, 185/2, 217 and 223/3 falling in the share of Kalidas and Ganeshdas i.e. sons of Mangaldas Bawabhai. 2.3 On 1.11.1993 a revenue entry being No.1830 came to be recorded, mutating the names of Gangaben and Savitaben, i.e. two surviving daughters of Lalabhai Bawabhai in respect of the subject land. The said entry was certified on 8.12.1993. 2.4 On 5.9.1994, a revenue entry being No.1853 came to be recorded, by which names of Kalidas Mangaldas and Ganeshdas Mangaldas were mutated as the co-owners along with Gangaben and Savitaben in respect of the subject land. The said entry was certified on 29.10.1994. 2.5 Another entry being No.1914 came to be mutated on 8.1.1996 recording relinquishment of right by Gangaben and Savitaben in respect of the subject land in favour of Kalidas and Mangaldas as per the registered Relinquishment Deed dated 19.12.1995. 2.6 In the year 2008, one Pravinbhai Shivabhai, one of the grandsons of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai and son of Laxmiben Lalabhai filed an appeal being RTS Appeal No.114 of 2008, challenging the entries being Nos.1830, 1853, and 1914 before the Pranth Officer and Deputy Collector, Viramgam. 2.6 In the year 2008, one Pravinbhai Shivabhai, one of the grandsons of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai and son of Laxmiben Lalabhai filed an appeal being RTS Appeal No.114 of 2008, challenging the entries being Nos.1830, 1853, and 1914 before the Pranth Officer and Deputy Collector, Viramgam. The said Pravinbhai also made an application in the form of "Chuk Varsai" along with the Pedhinama dated 5.8.2008 prepared by Talati-cum-Mantri, Singarva, requesting the Mamlatdar, Daskroi, to enter the names of legal representatives of Lalabhai Bawabhai in the revenue record. The Mamlatdar, Daskroi, therefore, mutated seven names vide the entry No.2462 in the Village Form No. VI on 27.10.2008. 2.7 The said RTS Appeal No.114 of 2008 came to be dismissed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam vide the order dated 20.8.2008 on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. On the basis of the said order dated 20.8.2008, the said entry No.2462 was not certified and was cancelled on 12.12.2008 by the Circle Officer. 2.8 Thereafter, Some of the legal representatives of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai filed RTS Appeal No.369 of 2009 before the Deputy Collector and Pranth Officer, Viramgam, challenging the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Circle Officer, not certifying the entry No.2462. The said appeal came to be rejected by the Deputy Collector vide the order dated 7.9.2010, against which the said legal heirs had preferred Revision Application being No.337/2010 before the District Collector, Ahmedabad. The said Revision Application came to be rejected vide the order dated 17.8.2012, against which the said legal heirs had preferred another Revision Application being No.97/2012 before the SSRD. The said Revision Application came to be rejected by the SSRD vide the order dated 10/12.6.2014, which is challenged by the petitioners as the legal heirs of the deceased daughters of the deceased Lalabhai by filing Special Civil Application No.15224 of 2014. 2.9 Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the Deputy Collector in RTS Appeal No.114/2008, some of the legal heirs of the deceased daughters of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai, i.e. the heirs and legal representatives of Harkhuben, Laxmiben and Maghiben, filed Revision Application being No.185 of 2008 before the Collector. The said Revision Application was rejected by the Collector vide the order dated 20.12.2008. The said Revision Application was rejected by the Collector vide the order dated 20.12.2008. 2.10 The said legal representatives of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai filed Revision Application being No.9/2009, against the order dated 20.12.2008 passed by the Collector in Revision Application No.185 of 2008, arising out of the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam. The said Revision Application No.9 of 2009 came to be dismissed by SSRD vide the order dated 10/12.6.2014. Being aggrieved by the said order of SSRD, Special Civil Application No.15731 of 2014 has been preferred. 3. So far as the facts of other two petitions i.e. Special Civil Applications No.7189 of 2015 and No.13405 of 2017 are concerned, it transpires from the record as under: 3.1 On 9.11.2009, some of the legal heirs of the deceased daughters of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai filed a Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.724 of 2009 against the said Kalidas Mangaldas Waghela and Ganeshdas Mangaldas Waghela (i.e. sons of Mangaldas Bawabhai) seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the subject land. During the pendency of the said suit, the said Kalidas and Ganeshdas sold out the subject land to one Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai Chandarana by executing a registered sale deed on 21.4.2010. An application, therefore, came to be filed in the said suit for impleading the said Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai Chandarana under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court, against which a petition being Special Civil Application No.4105 of 2011 was filed before this Court, and the same was allowed vide the order dated 23.4.2012 permitting the plaintiffs of the said suit to join the said Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai Chandarana as the party defendant in the suit. The said the regular suit appears to have been converted into Special Suit No.745 of 2012. 3.2 On 26.4.2013, vide Entry No.1032, the name of Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana, the father of Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai Chandarana came to be entered in the Revenue Record in respect of one land bearing Survey No.76/1 situated at village Bavalvav, District Porbandar. One Ashwinbhai Govindbhai Patel, resident of village Vanch, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad (alleged power-of- attorney holder of some of the petitioners), in his individual capacity filed the applications on 15.11.2013 and 16.12.2013 challenging the status of the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana of being an agriculturist in the Court of Mamlatdar. One Ashwinbhai Govindbhai Patel, resident of village Vanch, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad (alleged power-of- attorney holder of some of the petitioners), in his individual capacity filed the applications on 15.11.2013 and 16.12.2013 challenging the status of the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana of being an agriculturist in the Court of Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar, therefore, initiated an inquiry by issuing notice to the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana. The said case was registered as Ganot Case No.18 of 2014 under Section 122 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Pradesh and Kutchh Area) Act, 1958. The Mamlatdar, Lakhpat vide the order dated 27.5.2014 held inter alia that the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana was an agriculturist, and therefore, dropped the proceedings initiated against him. 3.3 It appears that the said Ashwinbhai had also made one representation on 21.1.2014 to the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals), Ahmedabad for taking action against the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana. The Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, after calling for the reports from the concerned offices of Deputy Collector, Daskroi, informed the said Ashwainbhai vide the communication dated 26.12.2014 that Shri Bhagwanji Jinabhai Chandarana was an agriculturist, and therefore, no action was required to be taken pursuant to his representation. 3.4 It further appears that the said Ashwinbhai Govindbhai Patel had preferred an appeal before the Deputy District Collector, Porbandar, challenging the entry No.1032 dated 26.4.2013 made in favour of Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana in respect of Survey No.76/1 situated at Bavalvav. The Deputy Collector, Porbandar, vide the letter dated 7.4.2015 informed the said Ashwinbhai that he (the said Ashwinbhai) being not an aggrieved/interested person, his appeal was required to be filed. 3.5 It appears that the said Ashwinbhai filed one petition being Special Civil Application No.2214 of 2015 before this Court seeking direction against the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps against the responsible persons under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act and Tenancy Act making general allegations against the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana without joining him as the party respondent in the said petition. It appears that the said petition was not pressed for at the time of admission hearing by the concerned Advocate appearing for the said petitioner Ashwinbhai with a view to pursue the respondents concerned, and the same was disposed of by the Court vide the order dated 6.2.2015. It appears that the said petition was not pressed for at the time of admission hearing by the concerned Advocate appearing for the said petitioner Ashwinbhai with a view to pursue the respondents concerned, and the same was disposed of by the Court vide the order dated 6.2.2015. 3.6 The said Ashwinbhai thereafter made a representation on 27.2.2015 to the Collector, Porbandar for holding an inquiry and taking action against the responsible persons under the Agricultural Ceiling Act and Tenancy Act, citing the said order passed by the High Court. The Collector, Porbandar vide the communication dated 18.3.2015 informed the said Ashwinbhai that he (i.e. the Collector) was not required to take any action as the matter did not pertain to his District. The said Ashwinbhai, claiming to be the power-of- attorney holder of some of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai filed Special Civil Application No.7189 of 2015 challenging the communication dated 18.3.2015 of the Collector, Porbandar and also the communication dated 26.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad. 3.7 The said Ashwinbhai Govindbhai Patel also filed a Revision Application being No.55 of 2015-2016 before the District Collector, Porbandar, against the order dated 7.4.2015 passed by the Deputy Collector, Porbandar in respect of entry No.1032 made in favour of the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana. The Collector, Porbandar vide the order dated 7.1.2016 dismissed the said Revision Application and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector, holding that the said Ashwinbhai could not be said to be the person aggrieved/interested and that the said Revision Application appeared to have been filed by him for some ulterior motive. 3.8 The said Ashwinbhai being aggrieved by the said order dated 7.1.2016 passed by the District Collector, preferred another Revision Application being No.5 of 2016 before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, in his personal capacity and as the power-of-attorney holder of some of the legal heirs of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai. The said Revision Application also came to be dismissed by the Additional Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, vide the order dated 10.11.2016 holding that the said Ashwinbhai could not be said to be the person aggrieved/interested so far as the land in question i.e. Survey No.76/1 at Bavalvav was concerned. The said Revision Application also came to be dismissed by the Additional Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, vide the order dated 10.11.2016 holding that the said Ashwinbhai could not be said to be the person aggrieved/interested so far as the land in question i.e. Survey No.76/1 at Bavalvav was concerned. 3.9 The said Ashwinbhai Govindbhai Patel in his personal capacity and as the power-of-attorney holder of some of the legal heirs of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai (the petitioners) has, therefore, preferred Special Civil Application No.13405 of 2017, challenging the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Additional Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Application No.5 of 2016 and further challenging the Entry No.1032 dated 26.4.2013 mutated in the name of Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana and others in the Revenue Record in respect of the Survey No.76/1 at Bavalvav. 4. The Court has taken into consideration the oral as well as written submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, as also the record of all the petitions. Special Civil Applications No.15224 of 2014 and No.15731 of 2014: 5. The petitioners have prayed for the following main prayers in these two petitions:- Prayer in SCA No.15224 of 2014:- "9.(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10/12.06.2014, passed by the Secretary Appeals (SSRD) in MVV/HKP/AMD/97/2012, with all consequential effect and benefits in favour of the petitioners." Prayer in SCA No.15731 of 2014: "9.(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10/12.06.2014, passed by the Secretary Appeals (SSRD) in MVV/HKP/AMD/9/2009, with all consequential effect and benefits in favour of the petitioners." 6. The main thrust of arguments of the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Y.N. Oza for the petitioners is that the very initial action of the predecessor of the petitioners i.e. Lalabhai Bavabhai in depriving the legal heirs of his daughters Muliben, Harkhuben, Laxmiben and Maghiben, of their respective shares in the subject land was illegal, and therefore, all consequential and subsequent proceedings would also fall through, as the illegality strikes at the root of the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the various decisions of the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. reported in, (2011) 14 SCC 770 , in case of Badrinath Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in, (2000) 8 SCC 395 , in case of Mangal Prasad Tamoli (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Narvadeshwar Mishra (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. reported in, (2005) 3 SCC 422 . Mr.Oza also submitted that the concerned respondents have not been able to show any loss suffered by them on account of delay occurred in challenging the entries at the instance of the petitioners, and therefore, they could not be permitted to raise the plea of delay. According to him the so called deed or karar allegedly executed by the said Lalabhai Bawabhai on 27.6.1993 was highly suspicious and not produced in any proceedings by the respondents, and therefore, cannot be relied upon. 7. Per contra, the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Marshel placing heavy reliance on the document dated 27.6.1993 submitted that the said Lalabhai Bawabhai had executed the said writing in presence of five panch witnesses, and one of them was Shivabhai S. Parmar, husband of Laxmiben (one of the six daughters) and father of Pravinbhai, and by the said document, the said Lalabhai Bawabhai had transferred the land bearing Survey No.223/2 and five houses in favour of Kalidas and Ganeshdas. He further submitted that thereafter the said Lalabhai Bawabhai expired in July 1993 and accordingly, the names of the said Kalidas and Ganeshdas were mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No.1853 posted on 5.9.1994. The Entry No.1914 was also posted as back as in January 1996 on the basis of registered Relinquishment Deed executed by Gangaben and Savitaben in favour of Kalidas and Ganeshdas. The said entries made in the revenue record were deemed to be within the knowledge of the petitioners, however, they did not choose to challenge the same for years together, and one Pravinbhai, S/o of Laxmiben and Shivabhai had challenged the said entries in the year 2008 i.e. after a gross delay of 12 years, though the present petitioners had not chosen to challenge the same at the relevant time. 8. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and to the documents on record, as stated herein above, it appears that both the petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.15224 of 2014 and 15731 of 2014 arise out of the revenue proceedings initiated by one Pravinbhai Shivabhai, one of the grandsons of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai and the son of Laxmiben and Shivabhai. Subsequently, the other legal heirs of the daughters of Lalabhai Bawabhai i.e. of Harkhuben, Laxmiben and Maghiben, had joined the proceedings. However, it is also pertinent to note that the Special Civil Application No.15224 of 2014 and No.15731 of 2014 have been preferred by the heirs of Harkhuben and Laxmiben, and that the heirs of Maghiben have been shown as the respondents in both the petitions. 9. The Special Civil Application No.15224 of 2014 arises out of the order passed by the SSRD on 10/12.6.2014 in Revision Application No.97 of 2012, confirming the orders passed by the District Collector, Ahmedabad, Deputy Collector and Circle Officer, Taluka Daskroi, not certifying the Entery No.2462 in favour of the heirs of Harkhuben, Laxmiben and Maghiben. The Special Civil Application No.15731 of 2014 arises out of the order passed by the SSRD on 10/12.6.2014 passed in Revision Application No.9 of 2009, confirming the orders passed by the Collector, Deputy Collector and Pranth Officer, Viramgam, who had dismissed the appeal of Pravinbhai Shivabhai, challenging the Entry Nos.1830, 1853 and 1914. 10. All these revenue proceedings were dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits, as the said Pravinbhai had initiated the proceedings after a lapse of about more than 12 years of the posting of the said entries. As such the Entry No.1830 was made on 1.11.1993, entry No.1893 was made on 5.9.1994 and the entry No.1914 was made on 8.1.1996, whereas the said entries came to be challenged by the said Pravinbhai in the year 2008. His application filed on 5.8.2008 for making "Chuk Varsai" entry was initially considered by the Mamlatdar, Daskroi and accordingly the names of seven legal heirs of Lalabhai Bawabhai were entered vide Entry No.2462 in the Vilage Form No.VI on 27.10.2008, however, the said entry was not certified as the Deputy Collector, Viramgam had dismissed the Appeal No.114 of 2008, arising out of the said challenge of the entries being Nos.1830, 1853 and 1914. Apart from the fact that there was a gross delay of more than twelve years in challenging the said entries as rightly recorded by the concerned authorities, there was no explanation offered by the said Pravinbhai about such gross delay. All the authorities have concurrently recorded the findings of facts, which in the opinion of the Court do not warrant interference in the writ petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 11. As held by the Supreme Court in case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. reported in, (2003) 6 SCC 675 , be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law, unless the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings, such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law; or unless a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned by such error. The Court is afraid, Mr.Oza has failed to make out any such case which would warrant interference of this Court. 12. Though the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Oza for the petitioners has sought to submit that the respondents having not suffered any loss on account of the delay, which had occurred on the part of the petitioners in challenging the revenue entries, the said submission could not be accepted. As transpiring from the record, the said Pravinbhai had already obtained the copy of the disputed entries in the year 1998, however, had sought to challenge the same in the year 2008 only. There was no explanation offered by him as to why the said entries were not challenged by the concerned legal heirs of the said Harkhuben, Laxmiben and Maghiben at the relevant point of time. It appears that the said Pravinbhai had also not filed any application seeking condonation of delay explaining the delay. Under the circumstances, all the authorities had rightly not entertained the said challenge to the entries after a period of more than 12 years. 13. Of course, as rightly submitted by Mr.Oza for the petitioners, the reliance placed by the learned Sr. Under the circumstances, all the authorities had rightly not entertained the said challenge to the entries after a period of more than 12 years. 13. Of course, as rightly submitted by Mr.Oza for the petitioners, the reliance placed by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Marshall for the concerned respondent on the document dated 27.6.1993 allegedly executed by Lalabhai Bawabhai, cannot be considered in the present proceedings, when the same was not produced earlier in any of the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities. If the same is produced in the civil proceedings pending before the Civil Court, the same shall be dealt with by the concerned Court having regard to the evidence on record. The Court in the present writ proceedings refrains itself from expressing any opinion on the genuineness of the said document. 14. The submission of Mr. Oza for the petitioners that the heirs and legal representatives of Muliben, Maghiben, Harkhuben and Laxmiben, the four daughters out of the six of Lalabhai Bawabhai, were illegally deprived of their respective shares in the subject land at the relevant time by the said Lalabhai Bawabhai, and therefore, the very basis of the posting of the disputed entries was illegal, cannot be considered at this juncture. In the opinion of the Court, it was too late in the light of the day to challenge the revenue entries made in the year 1993-94 in that regard, in the year 2008 and that too, by only one heir i.e. Pravinbhai Shivabhai, son of Laxmiben. Be that as it may, the petitioners have already filed the civil suit against Kalidas and Ganeshdas, and other respondent Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai Chandarana seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the subject land, which is pending before the concerned Civil Court, and therefore, the Court also refrains itself from expressing any opinion in this regard in the present writ proceedings. Further, it is well settled proposition of law that the entries in the Revenue records have only fiscal purpose i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership right is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title or rights to the property are concerned, the same can be decided only by the Civil Court. Beneficial reference in this regard of the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner reported in, (2007) 6 SCC 186 and in case of Rajinder Singh Vs. So far as title or rights to the property are concerned, the same can be decided only by the Civil Court. Beneficial reference in this regard of the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner reported in, (2007) 6 SCC 186 and in case of Rajinder Singh Vs. State of J & K, (2008) 9 SCC 368 , be made. 15. The submission of Mr.Oza that the illegal or invalid action would vitiate all the subsequent proceedings and defence of delay could not be taken by those, who are parties to such illegal action, also cannot be accepted. It is axiomatic that whether an order is valid or not cannot be determined by the parties. Such orders or proceedings even if are claimed to be illegal or invalid, the same have to be declared as such by the appropriate forum or the Court. It is only when such order or proceedings is declared illegal or void by the competent Court, such order or proceedings would operate as a nullity in subsequent proceedings. Beneficial reference of the decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard in case of Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia and Ors. Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 363 , in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Gurdev Singh reported in, (1991) 4 SCC 1 and in case of Sultan Sadik Vs. Sanjay Raj Subba and Ors. reported in, (2004) 2 SCC 377 be made. 16. In that view of the matter, both the petitions being Special Civil Application No.15224 of 2014 and No.15731 of 2014 deserve to be dismissed. Special Civil Application No.7189 of 2015 and Special Civil Application No.13405 of 2017:- 17. Special Civil Application No.7189 of 2015 was preferred by Shri Ashwinbhai Govindbhai as the power-of-attorney holder of the legal heirs of Harkhuben, and of Laxmiben, the deceased daughters of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai, without joining the heirs of the deceased Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai as the party respondents, seeking prayer for setting aside the order dated 18.3.2015 passed by the Collector, Porbandar and the order dated 26.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, in respect of the status of the deceased Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana, father of the deceased Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai in respect of the land bearing Survey No.76/1 situated at village Bavalvav, Taluka and District Porbandar. The petitioners subsequently appear to have amended the cause-title by transposing the legal heirs of the deceased Harkhuben as the party respondents and impleading the legal heirs of the deceased Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai as the party respondent Nos.5.1 to 5.3. 18. Special Civil Application No.13405 of 2017 has been filed by the said Ashwinbhai Govindbhai Patel in his individual capacity as well as claiming to be the power-of-attorney holder of the legal heirs of the deceased Harkhuben, Laxmiben and Savitaben, daughters of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai challenging the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.5/16 and also for setting aside the Entry No.1032 dated 26.4.2013 mutating the name of Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana in the revenue record in respect of the land bearing Survey No.76/1 situated at Village Bavalvav, Taluka and District Porbandar. 19. At the outset, it may be stated that though the said Ashwinbhai Govindbhai Patel had no right, title or interest, in any of the lands held by the deceased Bhagwanjibhai or Bipinbhai, he in his individual capacity, had initiated the proceedings by making various applications before various authorities, challenging the status of the deceased Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana, father of the deceased Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai. The said Ashwinbhai Govindbhai Patel filed one application before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Ahmedabad on 21.1.2014 praying to make inquiry against the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana alleging that he was not an agriculturist. The said application of the said Ashwinbhai was filed by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad after making inquiry and holding that the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana was holding the land bearing Survey No.76/1 situated at Village Bavalvav, Taluka and District Porbandar as an agriculturist. The said Ashwinbhai had also filed Special Civil Application No.2214 of 2015 before this Court, seeking direction against the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps against the responsible persons under the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act and Tenancy Act, making vague allegations against the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana, without joining him as the party respondent in the said petition. The said petition was not pressed for at the admission hearing by the learned Advocate appearing for the said Ashwinbhai by making a statement that the petitioner shall pursue the concerned respondent. Under the guise of the said order, the said Ashwinbhai made an application to the Collector, Porbandar for taking action against the responsible officers. The said petition was not pressed for at the admission hearing by the learned Advocate appearing for the said Ashwinbhai by making a statement that the petitioner shall pursue the concerned respondent. Under the guise of the said order, the said Ashwinbhai made an application to the Collector, Porbandar for taking action against the responsible officers. The Collector, Porbandar, vide the communication dated 18.3.2015 filed the said application stating inter alia that the matter mentioned in his application dated 27.2.2015 did not pertain to his jurisdiction. 20. The said Ashwinbhai had also challenged the Entry No.1032 mutated in favour of the said deceased Bhagwanji Jinabhai Chandarana, father of Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai Chandarana in respect of the land bearing Survey No.76/1 situated at Village Bavalvav, District Porbandar before the Mamlatdar, Lakhpat. The said case was registered as Ganot Case No.18 of 2014 under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Pradesh and Kutchh Area) Act, 1958. The Mamlatdar, Lakhpat after making necessary inquiry held that the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana was an agriculturist and dropped the proceedings vide the order dated 27.5.2014. The said order came to be challenged by the said Ashwinbhai before the Deputy Collector, Porbandar by filing an appeal. The said appeal was not entertained by the Deputy Collector, Porbandar on the ground that the said Ashwinbhai was not an aggrieved or interested person, vide the order dated 7.4.2015. The said Ashwinbhai filed revision application being No.55/2015-16 before the District Collector, Porbandar, who vide the order dated 7.1.2016 dismissed the revision application, again holding that the said Ashwinbhai was not an aggrieved or interested person. The said Ashwinbhai again preferred another Revision Application being No.5/2016 before the Secretary (Appeals) in his personal capacity as well as claiming to be the power-of-attorney holder of some of the legal heirs of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai. The said Revision Application also was dismissed by the Secretary (Appeals) vide the order dated 10.11.2016, holding that the said Ashwinbhai was not an interested or aggrieved person so far as the land bearing Survey No.76/1 of Village Bavalvav was concerned. 21. The said Revision Application also was dismissed by the Secretary (Appeals) vide the order dated 10.11.2016, holding that the said Ashwinbhai was not an interested or aggrieved person so far as the land bearing Survey No.76/1 of Village Bavalvav was concerned. 21. From the afore-stated facts it clearly transpires that the said Ashwinbhai kept on filing various representations/applications/appeals before various authorities, challenging the status of deceased Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana, the father of Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai Chandarana as an agriculturist, though the said Ashwinbhai had no right, title or interest in connection with either the Survey No.76/1 situated at Bavalvav, Porbandar or any land at Lakhpat, Kutchh or at Daskroi, Ahmedabad held by the said Bhagwanjibhai. The said Ashwinbhai also filed petition being Special Civil Application No.2214 of 2015 before this Court seeking direction against the respondent authorities for taking appropriate steps with regard to the status of the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana being an agriculturist. The said petition was surreptitiously not pressed for by the advocate appearing for the said Ashwinbhai by making apparently an innocuous statement that he would pursue the remedy before the concerned respondents. Under the guise of the said order, the said Ashwinbhai filed applications to the concerned authorities, who had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter with regard to the status of the said deceased Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana, to take action against him. The said Ashwinbhai kept on making frivolous and vexatious applications before the various authorities one after the other, keeping the issues alive though he had not personal interest in the land bearing Survey No.76/1 of Village Bavalvav or any other lands held by the said Bhagwanjibhai at the other places. When the Deputy Collector and the Collector, Porbandar in the respective orders held that the said Ashwinbhai was not an interested or aggrieved person so far as the Entry No.1032 posted in favour of Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana in respect of the Survey No.76/1 of Village Bavalvav was concerned, the said Ashwinbhai filed Revision Application before the Secretary (Appeals), challenging the order dated 7.1.2016 passed by the District Collector, Porbandar in his personal capacity as well as claiming to be the power-of-attorney holder of the legal heirs of the deceased daughters of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai. 22. 22. At this juncture, it is very pertinent to note that the petitions being Special Civil Application No.7189 of 2015 and Special Civil Application No.13405 of 2017 have been filed by the said Ashwinbhai as the power-of-attorney holder of some of the legal heirs of the deceased daughters of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai producing the deed of power-of-attorney allegedly executed by the said legal heirs on 5.7.2008. The said deed of power-of-attorney does not give any power to the said Ashwinbhai to file any proceedings against the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana or Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai Chandarana in respect of the lands held by them at various villages or the land bearing Survey No.76/1 situated at Village Bavalvav. The said deed of power-of-attorney even if is believed to have been executed by the concerned legal heirs of the deceased daughters of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai, the same pertained to the land bearing Survey No.223/2 situated at Village Singarva, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad only. The Court, therefore, is of the opinion that both the petitions being SCA No.7189 of 2015 and SCA No.13405 of 2017 filed by the said Ashwinbhai had no authority to file the same as the power-of-attorney holder of the legal heirs of the deceased daughters of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai. He also could not have filed the petitions in his individual capacity as he had no right, title, or interest in any of the lands held by the deceased Bhagwanjibhai as an agriculturist. It is needless to say that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked only by the "aggrieved person who has suffered legal injury" as held by the Supreme Court in case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported, (2013) 4 SCC 465 , in which it has been held as under :- "9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. 10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised." 23. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised." 23. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Oza had emphatically relied upon number of judgments of the Supreme Court on 'fraud' to submit that the said Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai Chandarana had purchased the agricultural land bearing Survey No.223/2 from Kalidas and Ganeshdas posing himself to be an agriculturist relying upon the status of his father Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana, however, the said Bhagwanjibhai Jinabhai Chandarana had become an agriculturist on the misrepresentation made by him and that he had got false entries mutated in his favour in respect of Survey No.76/1 at Bavalvav. According to Mr. Oza the said Bipinbhai Bhagwanjibhai Chandarana had committed fraud by wrongly posing himself to be an agriculturist for purchasing the land bearing Survey No.223/2 of Village Singarva. Mr.Oza has placed heavy reliance on the decisions in case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh reported in, (2011) 14 SCC 770 , Badrinath Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in, (2000) 8 SCC 395 and others to press into service the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" - foundation being removed, structure/work falls. He also relied upon in case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. reported in, (2003) 8 SCC 319 , wherein it has been held inter alia that Fraud, vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. 24. In the opinion of the Court, the propositions of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments relied upon by Mr. Oza could not be disputed, however, they have no application to the facts of the present case. As stated earlier, even if an order is void or is tainted by fraud, it requires to be so declared by a competent forum and it is not permissible for any person to ignore the same, merely because in his opinion the order is void. Whether an order is valid or void can not be determined by the parties. For setting aside such order, even if void, the party has to approach the appropriate forum. In Sultan Sadik Vs. Whether an order is valid or void can not be determined by the parties. For setting aside such order, even if void, the party has to approach the appropriate forum. In Sultan Sadik Vs. Sanjay Raj Subba reported in, (2004) AIR SC 1377, the Supreme Court held that once an order is declared nonest by the Court, then only the judgement of nullity would operate erga omnes i.e. for or against everyone concerned. 25. In the instance case, none of the Courts or revenue authorities have declared that the entry No.1032 mutated in favour of the deceased Bhagwanjibhai was tainted by fraud, and therefore, he and in turn his son Bipinbhai could not be said to be an agriculturists, apart from the fact that the petitioner Ashwinbhai has been held to be neither a person aggrieved nor interested to challenge the said entry or the status of the deceased Bhagwanjibhai. 26. As such, the Court finds much substance in the submission of Mr.Marshell for the respondent that the said Ashwinbhai appears to have purchased the litigation from some of the legal heirs of the deceased daughters of the deceased Lalabhai Bawabhai, and that he was filing vexatious proceedings under the guise of power- of-attorney executed by some of such heirs. 27. In that view of the matter both the petitions being Special Civil Applications No.7189 of 2015 and No.13405 of 2017 also being devoid of merits deserve to be dismissed. 28. In view of the above, all the four petitions i.e. Special Civil Application Nos.15224 of 2014, 15731 of 2014, No.7189 of 2015 and 13405 of 2017 are hereby dismissed. However, since the Court has found that the petitioner Ashwinbhai had kept on filing frivolous and vexatious applications/proceedings one after the other before the various authorities and taking the Courts and authorities on ride, though he had no personal interest or right, both the petitions i.e. SCA No.7189 of 2015 and SCA No.13405 of 2017 are dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- each, to be deposited by him in the Court within two weeks from today. Office to submit compliance report.