ORDER : 1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2006 passed by the Secretary, Revenue alleging the same to be arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. 2. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows: - 2.1. The petitioner is the widow of Pathubhai Jethabhai Koli who, according to her, was in possession of the land situated at Survey No. 117 of 8 acres and 5 guntha at Hathidra, Taluka- Palanpur. 2.2. The father of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 named as Ratnabhai Bhikhabhai was granted land admeasuring 8 acres and 5 gunthas of Survey No. 117 and 3 acres and 5 gunthas of Survey No. 243 on 08.08.1961. Ratnabhai passed away and respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 were minor at that time. Their names were also entered as legal heirs and representatives of Ratnabhai Bhikhabhai Koli. However, since Shankarbhai Jethabhai – maternal uncle of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 was looking after these respondents as a guardian, Entry No. 146 was mutated in his name in the records of right on 18.12.1970. 2.3. Shankarbhai Jethabhai passed away many years ago and then the name of another maternal uncle Pathubhai Jethabhai came to be entered in the record of rights as a guardian of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 who were still minor. When Pathubhai Jethabhai expired, the name of the present petitioner Maniben who is the maternal Aunt (Mami) of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 had been entered into the record of rights as a guardian. 2.4. On the ground that the land was being cultivated by some other persons then the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, to whom the land had been allotted by the State for cultivation, the name of the Government was entered in the record of rights after vesting the land in the Government. 2.5. The present petitioner – Maniben requested the Collector, Banaskantha to return the land to her and the Collector noticing the limit of 4 acres of land, vide its order dated 08.07.1998 had regularized 4 acres out of 8 acres and 5 gunthas of Survey No. 117. 2.6. 2.5. The present petitioner – Maniben requested the Collector, Banaskantha to return the land to her and the Collector noticing the limit of 4 acres of land, vide its order dated 08.07.1998 had regularized 4 acres out of 8 acres and 5 gunthas of Survey No. 117. 2.6. When the respondent realized the regularization on the part of the District Collector, for availing any opportunity of hearing to these respondents, they challenged the said order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha before the State Government under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code. 2.7. This had aggrieved the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and therefore, they challenged the order of the Collector, Banaskantha before the State Government. The Joint Secretary (Appeal) set aside the order of the Collector. 2.8. The order dated 24.03.2006 of the SSRD setting aside the order of the Collector, Banaskantha dated 08.07.1998 is challenged before this Court with the following prayers: - “(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow and admit this petition. (b) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24th March, 2006 passed by the Secretary, Revenue (dispute). (c) The Lordship may pleased to stay the impugned order dated 24th March 2006 passed by the Secretary, Revenue (dispute) during the hearing and final disposal of this petition. (d) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further relief in favour of the petitioner, as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 appeared on caveat and had filed affidavit-in-reply giving the narration of the chronology of events and eventually has urged that this is the only land for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to earn their livelihood and they are the lawful owners of the entire land bearing survey No. 117 admeasuring 8 acres and 5 gunthas. It is also contended by them that they were minors and the petitioner’s husband who happened to be their maternal uncle has acted as guardian however, the petitioner cannot get the right, title and interest in the land and for getting the possession of the land or entering the name in the record of rights, he would not get any entitlement. It is further urged that there will be no requirement for any relief in favour of the petitioner. 4. This Court (Coram: Mr. Jayant Patel, J.) on 14.08.2006 passed the following order:- “3. Prima facie it appears that in the matter of breach of condition, for cultivation of the land by the guardian on behalf of the minor, the allotment was cancelled and the land was forfeited to the Government. Instead of allotting the same to the legal heirs of the original allottee, the brother of the mother(Mama) and thereafter, his wife(Mami) is allotted the land. It has been stated that the petitioner is having two minor children and one is mentally weak and in the family of respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4, there are about seven children, all belonging to Koli community and they are also related to each other. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, inspite of 8 Acres 5 Gunthas, if the area of the land is allotted to continue with the petitioner admeasuring 2 Acres, and the remaining area of 6 Acres 5 Gunthas is allotted to remain with respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4, all the four families can survive. It has been stated that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs. 60,000/- towards 4 Acres of land and therefore, the respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 would be required to pay the amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards 2 Acres of land so as to get the said land from the petitioner as per the order of the State Government. 4. In view of the above, Rule. By interim order, it is directed that the impugned order of the State Government dated 24.03.2006 shall remain stayed only to the extent of the land admeasuring 2 Acre-0 Gunthas on condition that the respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 pays the amount of Rs. 30,000/- within a period of two months from today to the petitioner. However, it is clarified that respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 will be entitled to the additional area of 2 Acre from the area of 4 Acre already allotted to the petitioner only after the amount is paid by respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 to the petitioner and not prior thereto. The remaining area of 4 Acre-05 Gunthas is already granted by the State Government as per the impugned order. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 to the petitioner and not prior thereto. The remaining area of 4 Acre-05 Gunthas is already granted by the State Government as per the impugned order. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 2,3, & 4 will be entitled to the land admeasuring 6Acre-05 Gunthas after payment of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner, whereas, the land admeasuring 2 Acre shall continue to remain with the petitioner. In the event, the amount is not deposited, as ordered by the Collector dated 08.07.1998, it would be open to the authority to move this Court for modification.” 5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, it has been conveyed to this Court that there has been a due compliance of the order passed by the Court on 14.08.2006. The amount of Rs. 30,000/- has, in its all probability, been paid. Neither side has got any clear instructions in this regard. However, it is agreeable that the maternal uncle since has looked after the minors for number of years, as directed by way of interim relief, the petitioner since is a widow and maternal aunt and has mentally challenged child, for her livelihood, the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 have agreed not to question her entitlement so far as the 2 acres of area is concerned. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Himanshu Padhya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Dev Patel appearing with learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the respondents have urged this Court to accordingly modify the order of SSRD dated 24.03.2006 which is in challenge before this Court. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has fervently defended the order of SSRD. According to her, the SSRD has rightly observed that only because the minors were being looked after by the maternal uncle, his family would have no right to get the names mutated in the revenue records. However, in wake of the family understanding of the allowing 2 acres of land out of the 8 acres and 5 gunthas, the State has no objection in as much as the order of Collector barely reveals that she belongs to Koli community and would be otherwise entitled to 4 acres of land as per the resolution dated 08.01.1980. The Deputy Collector also has given positive opinion in that respect when the Collector passed the order which had been set aside by the SSRD, eventually. The Deputy Collector also has given positive opinion in that respect when the Collector passed the order which had been set aside by the SSRD, eventually. There is no legal disability on the part of the petitioner to get the name entered in the record of right and learned AGP has also not objected to the same in wake of clear opinion of Deputy Collector. 8. Having thus heard both the sides and also having taken a holistic view, this Court noticed that the order of SSRD otherwise would not require any interference, but for the family understanding arrived at by and between the parties, whereby the order passed by this Court at an interim stage dated 14.08.2006 has been urged to be confirmed, continuing the allotment of 2 acres out of 4 acres of land granted by the Collector to the petitioner. As specifically noted by the Court, all the four families, that of the petitioner and those of respondent nos. 3 and 4 can survive on the agricultural land as each one will get minimum 2 acres. 9. The amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards 2 acres which were to be paid by the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the petitioner no.1, if not already paid, the same shall need to be paid with the interest at the rate of 9% from the date of order till the date of payment. 10. The order of the Collector has given due importance to the resolution dated 08.01.1980 and the opinion of the Deputy Collector, although has rightly been revised by the SSRD, in wake of family understanding and with no hitch on legal side, the remaining 6 acres and 5 gunthas shall be mutated in the record of rights, in the name of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 as they are surely entitled to the parcel of land which belonged to their parents. For the 2 acres of land, the name of the petitioner – maternal aunt and her heirs shall be entered, where she would have exclusive right as conferred by the State without any hindrance from anyone in the future also. 11. The order of SSRD dated 24.03.2006 stands modified to the above extent. 12. The petition is allowed partly in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 13. 11. The order of SSRD dated 24.03.2006 stands modified to the above extent. 12. The petition is allowed partly in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 13. Parties will be at liberty to make a request if the entry is not already mutated in the name of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to enter the names and to get these changes within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.