ORDER : V.M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs, (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders, being Order dated 07.09.2018 passed by Respondent no. 2 in Revision No. MVV/HKP/MRB/2/2018 (Annexure A) and the Order dated 03.01.2018 passed by Respondent no. 3 Collector in Revision Application No. 48/2016-17(Annexure B) in the interest of justice; (B) Pending admission hearing and till final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant stay of impugned Orders passed by Respondents no. 2 and 3, viz. Order dated 07.09.2018 passed by Respondent no. 2 in Revision No. MVV/HKP/MRB/2/2018 (Annexure A) and the Order dated 03.01.2018 passed by Respondent no. 3 Collector in Revision Application No. 48/2016-17(Annexure B) in the interest of justice; (C) xxx xxx xxx 2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Pratik Jasani for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent authorities. 3. The facts of the present case in nutshell are as under, 3.1 The land in dispute in the present case is land bearing Survey No. 566/1 (New Survey Nos. 646 & 657) situated at Village: Vajepar, Taluka & District: Morbi. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the legal heirs of late Shri Dalvadi Motibhai Bhavanbhai and the land in question was running in the joint names of Shri Meethabhai Devabhai and Motibhai Bhavanbhai and, therefore, their names were mutated in the revenue record vide entry no. 246 on 29.12.1953. After the process of promulgation, out of total admeasuring 11 Acre, land admeasuring 3 Acre and 14 Guntha was running in the name of Shri Dalvadi Motibhai Bhavanbhai. However, the revenue authority without verifying the revenue record mutated the name of Shri Amrutlal Chhatrabhuj as Bharkalidar in respect of said parcels of land and revenue entry no. 1091 was posted in the revenue record. At that time, the concerned revenue officer scored off the name of Shri Dalvadi Motibhai Bhavanbhai. It is alleged that Shri Amrutlal Chhatrabhuj was not an agriculturist and inspite of that, his name was mutated in the revenue record as Bharkalidar. Similarly, another parcel of land was mutated in the name of Shri Devshibhai Dalvadi. At that time, the concerned revenue officer scored off the name of Shri Dalvadi Motibhai Bhavanbhai. It is alleged that Shri Amrutlal Chhatrabhuj was not an agriculturist and inspite of that, his name was mutated in the revenue record as Bharkalidar. Similarly, another parcel of land was mutated in the name of Shri Devshibhai Dalvadi. It is also averred that notice under Section 135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was not served upon Shri Dalvadi Motibhai Bhavanbhai and by playing fraud, the revenue authority mutated the names of private respondents in the revenue record. 3.2 It is also stated that said Amrutlal Chhatrabhuj died in 1990 and, therefore, names of his legal heirs were mutated in the revenue record vide entry no. 3227 on 26.04.1991. Another entry no. 6676 was mutated on 11.03.2002, by which, legal heirs of Amrutlal Chhatrabhuj relinquished their rights in favour of Dilip Amrutbhai. Similarly for other parcels of land, after the death of Devshibhai Dalvadi, names of his legal heirs were mutated in the revenue record in the year 2004. 3.3 It is the case of the petitioners that though the land in question was belonging to the petitioners, name of private respondents are mutated and when the petitioners came to know about the same, the petitioner filed Appeal before the Collector along with an application for condonation of delay. The said Appeal was dismissed by the respondent - Collector vide order dated 03.01.2018. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred Revision Application before the respondent - SSRD. The Revision Application was also dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2018 by the respondent - SSRD and, therefore, the present petition is filed. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioners has mainly contended that the respondent authorities ought to have appreciated the fact that the father of the petitioners viz., Shri Dalvadi Motibhai Bhavanbhai was the owner of the land in question and his name was running in the revenue record since 1953 and inspite of that, his name was fraudulently scored off by the respondent authority and, thereafter, the name of Shri Amrutlal Chhatrabhuj was mutated in the revenue record vide entry no. 1091, however, there was no justification available with the respondent authority to post the name of private respondents in the revenue record and inspite of that, the request of the petitioners was not entertained only on the ground of delay in filing Appeal. 5. 1091, however, there was no justification available with the respondent authority to post the name of private respondents in the revenue record and inspite of that, the request of the petitioners was not entertained only on the ground of delay in filing Appeal. 5. It is also contended that before mutating the name of predecessor of the private respondents, notice under Section 135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was not served to the father of the petitioners and inspite of that, disputed entries were mutated in the revenue record by the concerned revenue authority. It is, therefore, urged that looking to the facts of the present case, this Court may quash and set aside the impugned orders and issue necessary direction to the concerned revenue authority to cancel the entries made in favour of the private respondents and to mutate the name of the petitioners. 6. On the other hand, learned AGP opposed this petition and referred to the reasoning given by the respondent authority while passing impugned orders. It is contended that the petitioners have filed Appeal after a period of approximately 27 years, for which, no explanation is given by the petitioners. Thus, no error is committed by the respondent authority while passing impugned orders. 7. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties. From the record, it appears that entry no. 1091 was mutated in the revenue record in the name of one Amrutlal Chhatrabhuj and after his death, names of his legal heirs were mutated in the revenue record vide entry no. 3227 on 26.04.1991 and the said entry was certified on 31.05.1991. The petitioners, thereafter, filed Appeal before the respondent - Collector after a period of approximately 27 years alleging fraud against the concerned revenue authority and the predecessor of the private respondents. However, it is required to be noted that the petitioners have not filed any FIR/criminal complaint against the predecessor of the private respondents or against the private respondents for the alleged fraud committed by them. Learned AGP has rightly contended that the petitioners have failed to give reasonable explanation for not filing Appeal within a period of limitation. Thus when the proceedings are initiated after a period of approximately 27 years, the respondent authorities have rightly not accepted the claim of the petitioners in absence of any reasonable explanation. 8. Learned AGP has rightly contended that the petitioners have failed to give reasonable explanation for not filing Appeal within a period of limitation. Thus when the proceedings are initiated after a period of approximately 27 years, the respondent authorities have rightly not accepted the claim of the petitioners in absence of any reasonable explanation. 8. It is well settled that the revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes and the rights of the parties can be determined in the civil proceedings and, therefore, this Court is of the view that no error is committed by the respondent authorities while passing impugned orders, which requires interference in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.