ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed seeking the following prayers: “(A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this petition; (B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside order dated 1.7.2017 passed by Additional Secretary in HKP/DAHOD/37/2014 and order of the Collector dated 5.5.2014 in RTS Revision Application No. 5/2014 and order of the Deputy Collector dated 19.12.2013 in RTS Appeal No. 60/12; (C) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the Mutation Entry No. 266 of Village from No. 6 based on the Mamlatdar's order JMN/VASHI/785 dated 7.5.1991 and direct the Respondent No. 5 to restore the name of Petitioners in the Revenue Records. (D) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant status quo for the Survey Nos. 51 and 54, Block No.10 at Village -Zabpurv, Taluka- Fatepura, District Dahod. (E) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief(s), as are deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice;” 2. Learned advocate Ms.Dipmala Desai on behalf of learned advocate Ms.Shah appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the authorities have failed to appreciate that the land in question was allotted to the grandfather of the petitioners by Santrampur Government and since then they have been in possession and are continuously tilling the land and their names are also reflected in Village Form No.7/12 as well as in the panipatrak till the year 1991. She has submitted that the petitioners were not served with any notice before mutating the Entry No.266. It is further submitted by her that the authorities below have incorrectly concluded that the mutation Entry No.266 is based on the order of the Civil Court in the judgment rendered in Civil Suit No.139 of 1986, which was filed by the respondent for declaration and permanent injunction, but in fact the Civil Court had not directed to delete the name of deceased Manjibhai Jethabhai Nisarta. Thus, she has submitted that Entry No.266 was made without application of mind. 2.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Thus, she has submitted that Entry No.266 was made without application of mind. 2.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Desai that the private respondents in collusion with the revenue authorities entered the name of Kodar Valji vide Entry No.79 in the year 1956 and while entering the name of Kodar Valji, no clarification was made by the revenue authorities 2.2 Lastly, learned advocate Ms.Desai has invited the attention of the Civil Court to the Entry No.266 and has submitted that the same is made by the Mamlatdar, however, there is no order of Mamlatdar in this regard. 3. Opposing the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned advocate Ms. Desai, learned advocate Mr. Zabuawala appearing for the private respondents has submitted that the present writ petition is misconceived, in fact all the proceedings before the authorities below are filed with an oblique motive. He has submitted that the predecessor of the private respondents had filed civil suit being Regular Civil Suit No.139 of 1986, which was held in their favour by the judgment and order dated 30.04.1991 and they were declared as the owners of the land. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Civil Court, the deceased Manjibhai Jethabhai Nisarta filed an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.35 of 1991 and after a detailed examination of the entire record, the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.139 of 1986 was confirmed. He has submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid suit, the relevant entry was made in favour of the respondents. He has further submitted that after a passage of 21 years, the present petitioners have initiated the proceedings before the revenue authorities, which have been rightly rejected. Hence, he has submitted that the present petition may not be entertained. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayswal, while supporting the authorities below, has invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 01.04.2017 passed by the SSRD in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/Dahod/37/2014 and has submitted that the SSRD has passed the reasoned order and since the petitioners did not challenge the further orders passed in the civil appeal, the concerned Entry No.266 was mutated in the favour of the private respondents and hence, they cannot be permitted to challenge the same after a passage of so many years. Thus, he has submitted that the petition may not be entertained. 6. Thus, he has submitted that the petition may not be entertained. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. The facts, which are established from the record, are that the private respondents had filed a civil suit being Regular Civil Suit No.139 of 1986 before the Civil Court, Santrampur seeking permanent injunction against the deceased Manjibhai Jethabhai Nisarta, who is represented by the present petitioners. By a comprehensive judgment and order dated 30.04.1991, the civil suit was allowed in favour of the private respondents. 8. It was specifically held by the Civil Court that the private respondents are in possession of the land in question and the same is running in their names. The aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Civil Court was further challenged by the deceased Manjibhai Jethabhai Nisarta in Regular Civil Appeal No.35 of 1991 before the Court of 2nd Joint District Judge, Godhra, who by the judgment dated 01.01.1999 confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Santrampur. I may incorporate the observations made by the learned 2nd Joint District Judge. The same is reproduced as under; “10. I do not agree with the arguments of the ld. adv. Mr. B. N. Soni for the appellants . It is an admitted fact that the name of the pltf. has been there continuously in the revenue record. That the pltf. has produced certain mutation entry vide ex.3 which is no.179 dt. 24.4.71 and after the death of Kodar Valji, heirs of Kodar were brought on record. That the notice was served. Panchakayas was made and statements were recorded and thereafter entry was made confirmed, and hence, it is clear that from 24.4.71 all the heirs of the deceased Kodar Valji 's names are appearing in the revenue record. Not only that names of the pltf. is appearing in the Khedut column. Further method of the cultivation is shown as No.1 i.e. by the personal cultivation. If the dfdt. is co-owner and if he had any share in the suit property, then he ought to have raised objection against said proceedings and would have stated that pltf. is not only the owner of the property nor they are cultivating the suit land alone. That the name of the Koyali Kodar Nisarata was also entered in the panipatrak, vide entry no. 112,135,181 which shows that the pltfs. is not only the owner of the property nor they are cultivating the suit land alone. That the name of the Koyali Kodar Nisarata was also entered in the panipatrak, vide entry no. 112,135,181 which shows that the pltfs. have created burden on the suit land by taking loans from the dfdt. society. That the entry no.79 dt.19.9.56 is also made and the name of the Kodar Valji is appearing in the register and his name is not wrongly written in the register. That the said entry is also confirmed by the authority by giving notice to other side, and after taking the statement of the persons. So, it is clear that after year 1956 September, name of the father of the pltf. is appearing in the panipatrak and he is shown in possession of the suit land. So, it is clear that name of father of the pltf. is appearing since last many years. Not only that case of the dfdt. is that ex.67 and 68 are the entry made in the Santrampur State registere, but if we read the entry, it is clear from the same that name of the father of the dfdt. is entered with condition to pay the arrears of revenue assessment. There is no singly evidence is produced by the dfdt. to show that his father has paid arrears to the authority and the authority has confirmed the name of the father of the dfdt. as owner of the property. That simple mutation entry is made and no actual possession of the suit land is given to the dfdt. nor the dfdt. has taken the actual possession of the suit land. Not only that, the plaintiff haw categorically stated that (on oath), his father was sick for twenty years of T.B.disease and died due to it, at that time, the pltf. was aged 9 to 12 years old and father of the dfdt. has taken undue advantage of the situation and entered his name in the revenue record. Not only that the mutation entry in the revenue record is made to this effect and the Land Revenue Code is clear that at any time when any change is to be made in the revenue record, it is to be made with mutation entry and no such mutation entry is made and is produced by the dfdt. Not only that the mutation entry in the revenue record is made to this effect and the Land Revenue Code is clear that at any time when any change is to be made in the revenue record, it is to be made with mutation entry and no such mutation entry is made and is produced by the dfdt. to show that his father's name was mutated in the revenue record by such and such entry. In absence of any mutation entry, allegation made by the pltf. that dfdt. has joined hands and entered his name in the revenue record can be considered in the light of these documentary evidence. Of course, the court can not come to conclusion that it is the forged one, but there is some doubt about the genuineness of this entry, because there is a provision in the Land Revenue Code that every entry in the panipatrak or revenue record is to be made by mutation entry. That no such mutation entry is shown by the dfdt. nor produced by defendant that as pert he order of the Malkari, dfdt. has paid the assessment arrears and name of the dfdt. is entered into the revenue record. Not only that mother of the pltf. has been examined before this court and she has categorically stated that pltf. was in continuous possession of the suit land. Further, the dfdt. has admitted the suit of the pltf. vide his W.S. ex.18 and stated that he has no right, title or interest in the suit land. But thereafter, without any provision in the CPC, instead of amending the W.S., he has filed another W.S. And without hearing the ld. adv. for the pltf. the court has granted permission to file on same day, as if no W.S. is filed previously in the record and without hearing the pltf. ld. adv. Dfdt. has filed W.S. which is contrary to the W.S. at ex.18. Dfdt. has made out entire new case in the W.S at ex.84. Hence, it can not be considered. Even if we presume that pltf. was not heard and has waved his right, then to new story raised by the dfdt. is not proved by him. Simply because his name was to be entered by fulfilling the condition of paying assessment, but whether he has fulfill ed it or not is not proved by the dfdt. Even if we presume that pltf. was not heard and has waved his right, then to new story raised by the dfdt. is not proved by him. Simply because his name was to be entered by fulfilling the condition of paying assessment, but whether he has fulfill ed it or not is not proved by the dfdt. In view of this fact, dfdt. has failed to prove his contention taken in the W.S. that dfdt. himself has admitted in the W.S. at ex.18 that he has no property in Jab village and that there are three houses of the pltf. in the suit land. That it is occupied by the pltf. And his brother. That he has never paid any assessment of this land and he has no document to show that he has ever cultivated this land. As against that plaintiff has produced volumnous documentary evidence on record showing the payment of taxes, assessment, panipatrak, and also that he is in possession of the suit land and that he is residing in the suit land since last many years. If the dfdt. is in possession of the property then he must have something to show his possession over the suit land. He must have constructed his house in the suit land. Not only that when the dft. has come with case that he is owner of the suit land, then he must have knowledge about mutation of his name and renumbering of the property, which was renumbered since many years. But the dfdt. has no knowledge about it, nor he has ever seen the suit property prior to the renumbering. He has also examined one witness residing at the village of dfdt. who has never seen village Jab and never visited the village Jab. There is a clear admission on the part of the witness of the dfdt. that he has never visited the village and never seen it. That he has no land in the village Jaband he has not to visit village Jab, which clearly goes to show that he has never seen dfdt. cultivating the suit land. Further, the dfdt. has himself admitted that his properties are in village Hadmath and has no property in village Jab, which clearly goes to indicate that disputed property is situated in Jab village ,and hence, he has no right, title or interest over suit property. cultivating the suit land. Further, the dfdt. has himself admitted that his properties are in village Hadmath and has no property in village Jab, which clearly goes to indicate that disputed property is situated in Jab village ,and hence, he has no right, title or interest over suit property. Under the circumstances, the ld. Judge has rightly decided the case. In view of this case, I am unable to agree with the arguments of ld. adv. Mr. B.N.Soni that ld. Judge has committed any error in deciding this case, and hence, I decide point no.1 in negative.” 9. The Appellate Court, after threadbare examination of the relevant documents as well as the mutation entry, which was mutated vide Exh.3 which is Entry No.179 dated 24.04.1971, and after the death of Kodar Valji, the heirs of Kodar Valji were brought on record, has noticed that the petitioners cannot be said to be owners as the revenue record clearly reflects the names of private respondents. The Appellate Court has also observed the name of the respondents entered in the panipatrak, vide Entry Nos.112, 135 and 181, which show that they have created burden on the suit land by taking loans from the defendant society and Entry No.79 dated 19.09.1956 is also made and the name of Kodar Valji is appearing in the register. Both the Courts below have examined the voluminous documentary evidences and records showing payment of taxes, assesses, panipatrak and have submitted that the private respondents were in possession of the said land and they were residing since last many years. Thus, both the Courts below, after examining the entire documentary evidences, have held that the aforesaid entry is in favour of the private respondents and against the deceased Manjibhai Jethabhai Nisarta. The aforesaid judgment and decree was accepted and was not challenged further. After a passage of 21 years, the present petitioners approached the revenue authorities to cancel the mutation Entry No.266. The aforesaid entry was mutated in favour of the respondents in view of the order passed by the Civil Court. 10. The Village Form No.6 specifically reveals that the order of the Civil Court is also mutated with regard to the Entry No.266. Thus, after a passage of so many years, the petitioners have tried to resurrect the very same dispute, which has been laid quietus by the Civil Courts. 11. 10. The Village Form No.6 specifically reveals that the order of the Civil Court is also mutated with regard to the Entry No.266. Thus, after a passage of so many years, the petitioners have tried to resurrect the very same dispute, which has been laid quietus by the Civil Courts. 11. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition fails. The same is rejected. Notice discharged. 12. After the judgment was pronounced, learned advocate Ms.Desai has requested to extend of the interim relief. In view of the reasons recorded hereinabove, the request is refused.