JUDGMENT A J DESAI, J. 1. By way of the present petition under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :- "(A) Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside order dated 14.5.2018 passed by Special Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Application No.7 of 2018 by declaring the same as unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and be further pleased to allow Revision Application No.7 of 2018 by quashing and setting aside the order No.A/REV/NSJ/VASI/1227, 1231/2016 dated 13.06.2016 passed by Collector Surat and all subsequent act and/or orders passed in breach of judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.78/2002 and order passed by this Hon'ble Court in relation to subject land being land situated at Moje Pal, Taluka Adajan, District Surat being Survey No.164, Block No.158 admeasuring 3339 Square Meters and Survey No.177, Block No.162 admeasuring 3642 Square Meters forming part of Town Planning Scheme No.10 (Pal) having Final Plot No.17 admeasuring 5231 square Meters. (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application, Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain status quo as regards the nature, character and possession of the land situated at Moje Pal, Taluka Adajan, District Surat being Survey No.164, Block No.158 admeasuring 3339 Square Meters and Survey No.177, Block No.162 admeasuring 3642 Square Meters forming part of Town Planning Scheme No.10 (Pal) having Final Plot No.17 admeasuring 5231 square Meters." 2. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the private respondent No.15 has appeared through learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar and filed affidavit-in-reply on 20.11.2018. No rejoinder to the said affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the petitioners. 3. Mr. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the private respondent No.15 has appeared through learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar and filed affidavit-in-reply on 20.11.2018. No rejoinder to the said affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the petitioners. 3. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.15 has raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order dated 14.5.2018 was passed by Special Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Application No.7 of 2018 treating the said Revision Application as infructuous in view of affidavit filed by the present petitioners while submitting another Revision Application No.9 of 2018 before the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) challenging the order dated 11.7.2016 passed by the Collector, Surat and in the said revision application, the petitioners have categorically stated that the petitioners would like to withdraw Revision Application No.7 of 2018 by which the order dated 13.6.2016 was challenged. Therefore, the petitioners have suppressed the material facts on record. 4. Mr. Majmudar would further submit that in Revision Application No.9 of 2018 preferred by the petitioners, all contentions which have been raised in the present petition have been raised. Hence, on this ground, the petition be dismissed. 5. With regard to the preliminary objection, Mr. Rajesh K. Savjani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that in paragraph 5 of the petition, the petitioners have referred about preferring another Revision Application No.9 of 2018 challenging the order dated 11.7.2016 passed by Collector, Surat. Therefore, there is no suppression of facts. He has tried to argue the matter on merits. However, I have considered the facts with regard to the above aspect only and particularly when the impugned order has been passed by learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) treating the revision as infructuous in view of the statement made on oath by the petitioners in the memo of subsequent Revision Application No.9 of 2018. 6. In Revision Application No.7 of 2018, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.6.2016 passed by the Collector, Surat in favour of respondent No.15. Since the said revision application was not decided, the petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No.9590 of 2016 and by oral order dated 9.4.2018, the coordinate Bench of this Court has directed the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) to decide the revision application forthwith and disposed of the writ petition. 7. Since the said revision application was not decided, the petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No.9590 of 2016 and by oral order dated 9.4.2018, the coordinate Bench of this Court has directed the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) to decide the revision application forthwith and disposed of the writ petition. 7. Before the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) decide Revision Application No.7 of 2018, the District Collector, Surat had already passed an order dated 11.7.2016 in favour of private respondent No.15 and, therefore, Revision Application No.9 of 2018 was preferred by the petitioners on 4.5.2018. 8. In paragraph 4 of Revision Application No.9 of 2018, the petitioners have categorically stated as under :- "4. At the time when the said revision application came up before your Honour, on 2.5.2018, it was brought to the notice of your Honour that the learned Collector has passed an order on 11.7.2016 whereby the Collector, while granting the permission for N.A. has ordered the applicants to pay premium to the tune of Rs.1,77,85,400/- being 40% of the total premium of Rs.4,44,63,500/-. It is this order which was supposed to be challenged by the applicants, and hence the applicants sought permission of your Honour to file draft amendment. However, your Honour has asked the applicants to file a fresh revision application challenging the said order of the Collector, and may also produce any other documents which may be found necessary. Therefore the present revision application is filed before your Honour challenging the impugned order dated 11.7.2016 passed by the learned Collector with a liberty to withdraw the earlier revision application filed by the applicants challenging the notice dated 13.6.2016." 9. In view of the above referred categorical statement made by the petitioners in the memo of Revision Application No.9 of 2018, the impugned order dated 14.5.2018 has been passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) by specifically observing the subsequent order dated 11.7.2016. 10. Paragraph 5 of the present writ petition reads as under :- "5. The petitioners further submit that against the order dated 11.7.2016, the petitioners have preferred Revision Application No.9/18 before SSRD which is pending consideration. It is submitted that in Revision Application No.9/18 the SSRD (Appeals) by order dated 14.5.2018 directed the parties to maintain status quo in relation to property and revenue record. The petitioners further submit that against the order dated 11.7.2016, the petitioners have preferred Revision Application No.9/18 before SSRD which is pending consideration. It is submitted that in Revision Application No.9/18 the SSRD (Appeals) by order dated 14.5.2018 directed the parties to maintain status quo in relation to property and revenue record. A copy of order dated 11.7.2016 passed by Collector Surat which is stayed by SSRD (Appeals) by order dated 14.5.2018 passed in Revision Application No.9/18 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure "L" collectively." 11. Though in the memo of present petition, a reference about filing of Revision Application No.9 of 2018 has been made, no copy of the memo of Revision Application No.9 of 2018 was produced along with the petition. However, the same has been produced by the respondent No.15 along with the affidavit-in-reply. 12. In my opinion, the petitioners should have placed copy of memo of Revision Application No.9 of 2018 along with present petition and should have continued with the Revision Application No.7 of 2018 on merits instead of making specific statement in the memo of Revision Application No.9 of 2018. It is also pertinent to note that the grounds which have been raised by the petitioners in the present petition have already been raised in the memo of Revision Application No.9 of 2018. 13. Though the petitioners have themselves sought permission to withdraw Revision Application No.7 of 2018, since they had already preferred Revision Application No.9 of 2018 challenging subsequent order dated 11.7.2016, in my opinion, the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has not committed any order in passing the impugned order dated 14.5.2018 treating the revision as 'infructuous'. 14. This Court could have imposed heavy cost upon the petitioners for suppressing material facts while approaching this Court. However, since the dispute is between the family members, I have restrained myself from imposing any cost. 15. Considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case, I do not find any reason to exercise my extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as I am of the opinion that the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has not committed any error while passing the impugned order dated 14.5.2018 in Revision Application No.7 of 2018. Hence, the present petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. Ad-interim relief is hereby vacated.