ORDER : 1. We have heard Shri B.M. Mangukia, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State-respondents. 2. Chronology of events with respect to the controversy are as follows:- 1. 15.7.1968 Entry No. 3205 is recorded in favour of the present appellants in the revenue records. 2. 22.6.1979 Hereditary entry is also recorded in faovur of the appellants in the revenue records. 3. 2012 An appeal is filed by the private respondents, challenging the entries of 1968 and 1979, registered as RTS Appeal No. 182 of 2012. 4. 5.4.2013 The Deputy Collector dismissed the RTS Appeal No. 182 of 2012 of the respondents on the ground of extraordinary delay. 5. 3.5.2013 The respondents prefer revision before the Collector against order dated 5.4.2013 registered as RRT/ Revision/Case No. 25 of 2013-14. 6. 24.9.2013 The Collector allows RRT/Revision/Case No. 25 of 2013-14 filed by the private respondents and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Collector for a fresh consideration. 7. October 2013 The present appellants prefer revision registered as MVV/HKP/SNR/41 of 2013 before the Secretary, challenging the order dated 24.9.2013. The revision remains pending without any interim orders. 8. 2013-2014 After remand order dated 24.9.2013, the appeal is registered afresh before Deputy Collector as Remand RRT/Appeal No. 233 of 2013. 9. 18.12.2014 The Deputy Collector, pursuant to the remand order dated 24.9.2013, again dismissed the appeal. 10. 2015 The respondents preferred revision before the Collector against the order dated 18.12.2014 registered as RRT Revision Case No. 165 of 201415. The said revision remains pending. 11. 12.4.2016 The Secretary decides the Revision No. 41 of 2013 preferred by the present appellants, by confirming the orders dated 24.9.2013 and also the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector (which was not the subject matter of the revision). 12. 3rd week of June 2016 The respondents prefer Special Civil Application No. 10883 of 2016 before this Court, challenging the order of Secretary dated 12.4.2016. 13. 21.7.2016 The Collector dismisses the RRT Revision Case No. 165 of 2014-15 for the reason that the Secretary has already taken a decision and as such, he does not need to examine the matter on merits and follows the order of the Secretary. 14. 25.09.2019 The respondents move a draft amendment challenging the order of the Collector dated 21.7.2016. 13. 21.7.2016 The Collector dismisses the RRT Revision Case No. 165 of 2014-15 for the reason that the Secretary has already taken a decision and as such, he does not need to examine the matter on merits and follows the order of the Secretary. 14. 25.09.2019 The respondents move a draft amendment challenging the order of the Collector dated 21.7.2016. The writ Court (learned Single Judge) allows the amendment application on the same day. 15. 26.09.2019 Amendment is carried out. 3. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 21.10.2019, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, allows the petition, sets aside the order dated 12.4.2016 passed by the Secretary for the reason that the Secretary ought not to have confirmed the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, which was not under challenge before the Secretary, nor was it for its consideration. The Secretary was only required to consider the merits of the order dated 24.9.2013 passed by the Collector remanding the matter. The only scope of the Revision was whether the order of remand dated 24.9.2013 was right or wrong. 4. The learned Single Judge further sets aside the order dated 21.7.2016 passed by the Collector as it had not dealt with the matter on merits and had only followed the order passed by the Secretary. According to the learned Single Judge, once the Secretary had confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 18.12.2014, although not within its scope of the Revision and since the appeal before the Collector was also against the same order of the Deputy Collector dated 18.12.2014, the Collector had no option but, to dismiss the Revision. Thus, the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the order dated 21.7.2016 and directed the Collector to decide the appeal a fresh on its own merits, uninfluenced by the order dated 12.4.2016 passed by the Secretary. 5. Shri B.M. Mangukia, learned counsel for the appellants has very strenuously urged that the learned Single Judge committed an error in disturbing the order dated 21.7.2016 which was not even challenged in the writ petition and, therefore, the order is bad and deserves to be set aside. 5. Shri B.M. Mangukia, learned counsel for the appellants has very strenuously urged that the learned Single Judge committed an error in disturbing the order dated 21.7.2016 which was not even challenged in the writ petition and, therefore, the order is bad and deserves to be set aside. 5.1 Shri B.M. Mangukia further submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error inasmuch as the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was taking undue advantage of the situation of there being no interim relief in favour of the respondents- appellants herein. Learned counsel submitted that once the writ petitioner received an adverse order, he cannot have a right to make a grievance of taking an advantage of the fact situation of there being no interim protection to the Revisionist before the Secretary. The writ jurisdiction is not required to be exercised ex debito justitiae and no futile writ is required to be issued. 6. The arguments advanced by Shri B.M. Mangukia are misconceived. Firstly, the order of Collector dated 21.7.2016 was also challenged in the writ petition by way of draft amendment which was allowed. The submission in this respect is contrary to the record. The copy of Special Civil Application annexed with the appeal is not an accurate and complete copy as it does not incorporate the amendment. 6.1 Secondly, the writ petitioner did not take any undue advantage of his own conduct. The present appellants had preferred the Revision but had failed to obtain any interim order from the Revisional Court and, therefore, the Deputy Collector rightly proceeded to re-decide the matter in view of the remand order passed by the Collector. The learned Single judge has not committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the Secretary inasmuch as the Secretary had dealt with and confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector dated 18.12.2014 which was not even challenged before the said revisional Authority. 7. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has done due justice between the parties. The Secretary having erred in confirming the order dated 18.12.2014, there was no option left for the learned Single Judge to set aside the order subsequently passed by the Collector based on the decision of the Secretary dated 12.4.2016. The parties have an opportunity of getting a decision on merits by the Collector. 8. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 9. The parties have an opportunity of getting a decision on merits by the Collector. 8. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 9. Consequently, connected Civil Application also stands disposed of.