ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- “7(b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2018, passed by the learned Secretary [Appeal] Revenue Department, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/BHCH/2/2017, and further be pleased to pass necessary order to enter the name of the petitioner in revenue records as one of the co-sharer of the properties in capacity of legal heirs of the deceased Shabbir Asmal Adam and also to delete the names of the heirs of Adam Isa from the revenue records so far as the properties of the deceased Asmal Adam is concerned, as prayed.” 2. The dispute pertains to several parcels of lands of village Navetha, Taluka and District: Bharuch. This parcel of land on the basis of being a tenant was entered in the name of one Aslam Adam Ise and was given right as a tenant under the Tenancy Act. The petitioner has filed Revision proceedings in her capacity of wife of Late Shabbir Aslam Adam, son of Aslam Adam who was an agriculturist and in whose name land bearing revenue Block Nos.39, 56A, 89 and 133 was entered in the year 1963 as tenant. It is submitted that upon the death of Aslam Adam in the year 1980, agricultural lands running in the name of Aslam Adam were entered into the name of legal heirs of Aslam Adam. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3.2-Sarafaraj Musa Adam, who is son of Musa Adam, being a real brother of Alsam Adam claimed that the respondent No.3.2 and other family members of brothers of Aslam Adam had Right in the agricultural land running in the name of Aslam Adam and either by mistake or mischief, these rights into the agricultural lands in the name of Aslam Adam were extinguished without following process of law. However, such claim of respondent No.3.2 was not accepted in the year 2011 and by a communication dated 30.11.2011, it was stated that Adam Ise who is father of Aslam Adam and is other brothers including Musa Adam were not declared as a tenants of the lands in question and therefore, other sons of Adam Ise could not claim any right, title or interest in the lands belonging to their brother Aslam Adam Ise. 4. It is submitted that therefore, rightly upon the death of Aslam Adam in the year 1980, revenue entry No.1190 was posted in the revenue record on 03.02.1982 and was certified by which names of legal heirs of Aslam Adam i.e. Yunus Aslam Adam, (2) Shabbir Aslam Adam, (3) Dilawar Aslam Adam, and (4) Mehmuda Aslam Adam were accepted, except for this there were no other rights of any individuals, including the respondents. 5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that despite the order passed in the year 1982, once again the respondent No.3.2-Sarfaraj Musa Adam, son of Late Musa Adam and bother of Aslam Adam made an application for entering the name of respondent No.3.2 and other family members in revenue record as legal heirs of Aslam Adam. The application came to be rejected and the appeal preferred against the order of the Mamlatdar was also rejected. It is thereafter, other brothers of Aslam Adam and their heirs again filed an Appeal before the learned Assistant Collector, once again challenging the order of the Mamlatdar. This was barred by the principle of resjudicata and while passing the order, the Assistant Collector remanded the case back to the Mamlatdar for the purpose of verifying the entry No.581 dated 20.04.1961. 6. It is submitted that immediately thereafter, included the land being revenue Block Nos.69, 56/A, 89 and 133 in the property of Aslam Adam despite the fact that such property was running in the name of Aslam Adam under the Tenancy Act and not under the ownership right as if the same were ancestral properties. The claim of the petitioner is therefore, the land of aforesaid block numbers were individual properties of Aslam Adam under Tenancy laws and not other person including the brothers of Aslam Adam under succession or under inheritance. The claim of the petitioner is therefore, the land of aforesaid block numbers were individual properties of Aslam Adam under Tenancy laws and not other person including the brothers of Aslam Adam under succession or under inheritance. It is submitted that the revenue authorities ought to have taken into consideration the fact of physical possession by the present petitioner and entered present petitioner’s name in revenue record by way of inheritance. It is submitted that the authority ought to have taken into consideration the locus of the respondents who were admittedly the brothers of the deceased Aslam Adam Ise and cannot be treated to be direct descendants to inherit the properties. It is submitted that the error is committed by the authorities to treat self acquired property of Aslam Adam to be a joint property of family of Adam Ise. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has opposed the petition justifying the order of the revenue authorities on the ground that the arguments of the petitioner with regards to principle of resjudicata cannot be accepted as the revenue authority at the relevant time had at the best declared that Adam Ise was not a tenant, but that pertain to the lands which were agricultural lands, but did not exclusively pertaining to the revenue block numbers for which proceedings are initiated herein. It is submitted that the agriculture land despite being several parcels of the lands were of the joint family property of Adam Ise, but some portion of the lands were also such, where family of Adam Ise were tenant and therefore, upon the death of Adam Ise, name of the eldest son Aslam was entered in the revenue record, but such cannot be treated to be of self acquired ownership of Aslam Adam. 8. The Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The revenue record of her parcels of land which was connected to Adam Ise, father of Aslam Ise and is brother would indicate as under.- 8.1 Upon verifying mutation entry no.581 dated 20/04/1961 of the village records, it was entered for mutation of the names of Asmal Adam Ise for self and as guardian of Minor Yakub Adam Ise, Minor Gafur Adam Ise, Minor Muse Adam Ise, Minor Hasan Adam Ise as heirs upon death of Adam Ise Natha in Old Survey Nos. 32/1, 32/3, 52/4,106/9, 141/2, 158/2, 25/10 and 59, total eight survey numbers and it is found that Asmal Adam Ise is the guardian of minors. Whether family partition is made for the said survey numbers or not, whether the rights have been relinquished willingly or not, whether Asmal Adam Ise is considered as an occupier or not and as to whether his share is there or not considering him as head of the family being guardian of minors. Actually, there is dispute between the parties for land of Old Survey No.25/10 (B.No.89), Old Survey No.59 (B.No.133), Old Survey No.3/3 (B.No.39) and Old Survey No.29/1 (B.No.56/A), total four (4) survey numbers (B.Nos.) of Moje: Navetha, Taluka and District: Bharuch. The name of Ise Natha is deleted as protected tenant from Survey No.25/10 (B.No.89) by mutation entry no.415 dated 02/04/1955, but he is shown as an occupier as tenant on the basis of Form No.9 - Purchase Certificate in Old Survey No.3/3 (B.No.39) by mutation entry no.630 dated 25/08/1963. Asmal Adam Ise is shown as an occupier as tenant on the basis of Form No.9 - Purchase Certificate in Old Survey No.25/10 (B.No.89) by mutation entry no.903 dated 27/08/1969 and Asmal Adam Ise is shown as an occupier as tenant in Old Survey No.59 (B.No.133) pursuant to pay the purchase price. But the original tenant of the land in question was Adam Ise Natha and therefore, the effect of the names of Asmal Adam Ise and (1) Minor Yakub Adam Ise (2) Minor Gafur Adam Ise (3) Minor Muse Adam Ise and (4) Minor Hasan Adam Ise through guardian Asmal Adam were required to be mutated by mutation entry no.581 dated 20/04/1961, but the effect of the said mutation entry is not made on the records as per records of right at the relevant time. 9. The issue therefore, which was examined when the first application was made as claimed by the petitioner in the year 2011 by the respondent No.3.2 was on the basis of finding that Adam Ise was not tenant which is contrary to the revenue record and therefore, when this aspect was brought to the notice of the revenue authorities the order of remand was made to examine particular revenue entry and effect of such entry. This aspect cannot be said to be barred by the principle of resjudicata more particularly when the revenue record was clearly indicating otherwise than what was held by the Magistrate in previous round of litigation. The revenue record also indicates the fact that there has been no partition of the disputed survey numbers among petitioner and respondents. The respondents have not withdrawn any right and there is no mutation entry for the same. Upon reading the mutation entry no.581 dated 20/04/61, Asmal Adam Ise is established as the head of the family and guardian of minors. Names of respondents Minor Yakub Adam, Minor Gafur Adam, Minor Muse Adam and Minor Hasan Adam have been added in disputed survey no. paiki 25/10 (B. no.89) and survey no.59(B. no.133) vide mutation entry no.581 in succession of Late Adam Isefather of applicants and respondents. Moreover, name of the farmer is mentioned as Asmal Adam and others in the changed survey no.3/3(B. no.39) with reference to mutation entry no.630, dated 25/08/63, tenancy order no. A.L.T. 20, dated 31/03/1963, issued by Agriculture Land Tribunal, Bharuch Taluka and Deputy Collector Shri R.S.Selat. ‘Others’ include brothers of Asmal Adam i.e respondents namely Minor Yakub Adam, Minor Gafur Adam, Minor Muse Adam and Minor Hasan Adam. As per ‘supporting deposition’- deposition of Asmal Ise, on page no.3 tenancy order no. A.L.T. 20, dated 31/03/1963, on the basis of solemn declaration of Asmal Adam, it appears that aforementioned survey no.3/3(B. no.39) was assigned as share of Asmal Adam in the partition among brothers of Adam Ise. Thus, while mutation in aforementioned survey no.3/3 (B. no.39), name of Asmal Adam was added in the aforementioned survey no.3/3(B. no.39) as Tenant upon being head of the family and guardian of the minors only because Adam Ise was not alive at that time. Secondly, at that time, they used to live in joint family and Asmal Adam was the eldest son and he was managing everything as head of the family and his brothers i.e respondents were minor at that time, hence it is clear that the installments of tenancy were paid from joint income. Moreover, Revenue survey no.29/1(B. no.56-A) was owned by Vali Ise Natha, successor of the deceased was named as Ismail Adam vide entry no.884, dated 30/10/68. Thus, the respondents have no right-share in survey no.29/1(B. no.56-A). Moreover, Revenue survey no.29/1(B. no.56-A) was owned by Vali Ise Natha, successor of the deceased was named as Ismail Adam vide entry no.884, dated 30/10/68. Thus, the respondents have no right-share in survey no.29/1(B. no.56-A). Thus, upon verifying the aforementioned documentary evidence/ record, taking into account Circular no. HKP-1095-2704-J, dated 15/03/96, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar of Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, related to Tenancy Act, the respondents have right-share in Revenue survey no.25/10(B. no. 89), Revenue survey no.59(B. no. 133) and Revenue survey no.3/3(B. no. 39) at Moje:Navetha, Taluka and District: Bharuch and they are proved to be legal heirs in the aforementioned land. Moreover, there does not appear right-share of respondents in the land vide Revenue survey no.29/1(B. no.56-A). 10. The revenue record also supports the finding given by three successive authorities who has uniformly given finding of fact which is recorded by the Special Secretary in its impugned order dated 04.05.2018 which is reproduced hereunder:- “Considering the representation made in the revision application of the applicant, the produced material and evidence, particulars of the impugned order of the Collector, Bharuch and representations made by the parties / advocates, it appears that, the land in dispute situated at moje – Navetha, Ta. Dist. Bharuch in the name of Adam Ise Natha – (1) ancestral land of New Block No.60/a/b of Survey No.32/1 admeasuring ha. 0-99-68 sq.m., (2) New Block No.58/a of Survey No.32/3 admeasuring ha. 1-19-47 sq.m., (3) New Block No.92 of Survey No.52/4 admeasuring ha. 0-02-02 sq.m., (4) New Block No.207 of Survey No.106/9 admeasuring ha. 0-18-21 sq.m. have been obtained by Adam Ise under tenancy right (5) Survey No.141/2, (6) New Block No.309 of Survey No.158/2 admeasuring ha. 0- 44-52 sq.m. have been obtained by Adam Ise under tenancy right, (7) New Block No.89 of Survey No.25/10 admeasuring 0- 10-12 sq.m. has been obtained by Asmal Adam under tenancy right and (8) New Block No.133 of Survey No.59 admeasuring ha. 1-40-63 has been obtained by Asmal Adam Ise under independent tenancy right. Names of all the heirs of deceased Adam Ise Natha – (1) Asmal Asam Ise, (2) Abhram Adam Ise and guardians of (3) minor Yakub Adam Ise, (4) Gafur Adam Ise, (5) Muse Adam Sie and (6) Hasan Adam Ise etc. were registered vide Varsai (Legal Heirship) Entry No.581 dated 20/04/1961 in all the above mentioned lands. Names of all the heirs of deceased Adam Ise Natha – (1) Asmal Asam Ise, (2) Abhram Adam Ise and guardians of (3) minor Yakub Adam Ise, (4) Gafur Adam Ise, (5) Muse Adam Sie and (6) Hasan Adam Ise etc. were registered vide Varsai (Legal Heirship) Entry No.581 dated 20/04/1961 in all the above mentioned lands. In connection with the lands in dispute, the Deputy Collector, Bharuch passed a speaking order vide Order No. HKP / Appeal No.85 / 12 dated 19/08/2012 that, it has been established that the lands of above mentioned eight survey numbers are registered in the name of guardian of the minors in Entry No.581. The case was remanded to the Mamlatdar, Bharuch for a fresh decision after verifying - Whether the lands in dispute have been distributed amicably? Whether anyone has relinquished his right? Whether Asmal Adam Ise has been considered as a sole occupant? Whether their shares have been kept as a head of joint family and guardian of the minor? The applicants filed an appeal before the Collector, Bharuch challenging the order. The Collector, Bharuch passed an Order No. HKP / Appeal No.68/12/Vashi/11007 to 11022 dated 13/11/2013 uphelding the order dated 17/08/2012 of the Deputy Collector, Bharuch considering it appropriate. The Mamlatdar, Bharuch passed an Oder No. RTS / Remand / Dispute Case No.4/12/Vashi/1167 to 1182 dated 19/11/2014, over-riding the order dated 17/08/2012 of the Deputy Collector, Bharuch, to insert New Block No.39 of Revenue Survey No.3/3 of Navetha. Challenging the same, an appeal No.243/2014 was filed before the Deputy Collector, Bharuch. The Collector, Bharuch dismissed the appeal and passed an order No. HKP/Appeal No.243/14/Vashi/6435 to 6453 dated 27/07/2015. The applicant filed a revision application before the Collector, Bharuch challenging the order. The Collector, Bharuch dismissed the revision application of the applicant vide his order No. HKP/Appeal/Case No.26/16/Vashi/11938 to 11956 dated 22/11/2016 and did not find it appropriate to intervene considering the order No. HKP/Dispute Case No.4/14/Vashi/1167 to 1182 of the Mamlatdar, Bharuch to be self-explanatory and the order No. HKP/Vashi/243/14 dated 14/07/2015 of the Deputy Collector, Bharuch to be appropriate. As the father of the applicants was registered as a guardian of the opponents in the land in dispute and land of New Block No.39 of Survey No.3/3 was also obtained under the Tenancy Act in 1963, it also contains rights and shares of the opponents.” 11. As the father of the applicants was registered as a guardian of the opponents in the land in dispute and land of New Block No.39 of Survey No.3/3 was also obtained under the Tenancy Act in 1963, it also contains rights and shares of the opponents.” 11. In view of the aforesaid finding of fact by the authorities, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the authorities. The petition therefore, deserves to be and the same is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.