JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of challenging the legality and validity of the orders passed by the authorities below, namely, order dated 26.06.2010 passed by the District Collector, Panchmahal in RTS/APPEAL No.20/09/washi/1403 TO 1407 and the order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) and also an order passed by the respondent Deputy Collector on 01.07.2010. 2. The background of the facts which has given rise to filing of this appeal is that certain parcels of lands are situated at village : Manchod, Taluka: Santrampur bearing Account No. 13 consisting of Survey No. 95/3, 130/1, 145/1, 150/3, 150/6, 152 paiki 1, 155/5, 155/6, 162/3, 163/3 and 222 and the present petitioner claiming to be an adopted son of deceased Kesrabhai Khant was having one daughter only and after the death of Kesrabhai Khant on 27.10.1987, the present petitioner came to be mutated vide Entry No.494. By virtue of registered adoption deed in the year 1984, the petitioner came to be adopted by said deceased Kesrabhai Khant and in view of that registered adoption deed, a revenue entry was made bearing Entry No.494 on 26.06.1984 in favour of present petitioner. The said entry, according to petitioner, came to be certified on 14.09.1989 after due process. It is this Entry No.494 which was made the subject matter of challenge by respondent Hamirbhai Somabhai Khant by way of preferring an appeal before the learned Deputy Collector, Lunavada under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972. The said appeal was entertained and by virtue of order dated 01.07.2009, the appeal came to be allowed and Revenue Entry No.494 came to be set aside. On account of such order passed by learned Deputy Collector, the present petitioner has filed an appeal before the Collector under Rule 108 sub-rule 6 of Rules 1972 but the learned Collector did not consider and the appeal also came to be dismissed. Against the said order passed by the learned Deputy Collector as well as by learned Collector, the present petitioner has preferred a Revision Application before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) which came to be registered as a Revision Petition No.16 of 2010. Against the said order passed by the learned Deputy Collector as well as by learned Collector, the present petitioner has preferred a Revision Application before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) which came to be registered as a Revision Petition No.16 of 2010. 2.1 The case of the petitioner is that the said revision application came to be heard by the learned Special Secretary (Appeals) and the revision petition came to be dismissed whereby both the orders passed by the authorities below came to be confirmed by order dated 11.06.2012 and it this order passed by the learned Special Secretary (Appeals), the present petition is brought before the Court. 3. This petition came to be entertained by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by virtue of order dated 25.09.2012 and by detail order, the matter came to be admitted and the status quo with regard to Entry No.494 dated 26.06.1984 and certification thereof was ordered to be maintained till final disposal of this petition. Later on, the matter came up for consideration time and again before various Benches and now it has come up for consideration before this Court in which Mr. Mehul S. Shah, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. Mehul M. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Vijay Patel, learned advocate appearing for Mr. H. L. Patel Advocates has represented contesting respondent and Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader has represented State - Authority. 4. Mr. Mehul S. Shah, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. Mehul M. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the entry in question which has been effected originally was pursuant to the registered adoption deed and it is settled position of law that if the document is registered it is obligatory on the part of revenue authority to mutate the entry. It has further been submitted that the revenue authorities cannot examine the validity of the deed of adoption more particularly when the same was registered and further it has been submitted that suit with regard to such controversy of adoption is already seized before the competent forum at various stages and as such has submitted that when this background of fact is reflecting from the record, the learned Secretary (Appeals) ought not to have passed the impugned order. 4.1 Mr. 4.1 Mr. Shah, learned senior advocate has further submitted that it is settled position of law that revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised within a reasonable period of time and further the revenue authorities are also expected to exercise their respective discretion within a reasonable period. By inviting an attention of this Court to Sections 205 and 206 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, a contention is raised that the appeal when to be preferred against any mutation, same to be submitted within a period of sixty days and in the event of any delay being caused the said delay deserves to be condoned and it is thereafter the jurisdiction deserves to be exercised and here it has been specifically revealed from the record that the entry which has already been made in the year 1984, which got certified in the year 1989, is taken in proceeding by the revenue authority, namely, the Deputy Collector, Lunavada for the first time in the year 2008 and as such when there is such a gross delay in preferring the appeal and it is this delay of more than 20 years ought not to have been ignored by the authority. It has been pointed out that by virtue of mandate of Sections 205 and 206, as stated above, it was expected on the part of an authority to first condone the delay and then exercise the discretion. This point has been specifically canvassed before the authority but the same has not been dealt with and as such this being a clear error of jurisdiction the Hon'ble Court may kindly set aside the impugned orders. 4.2 In addition to this, Mr. Shah, learned senior advocate has further submitted that the deed of adoption was a registered deed and the same was the subject matter of controversy before the Civil Court in which it has been submitted that petitioner has preferred Regular Civil Suit No.33 of 2008 and Regular Civil Suit No.40 of 2008 whereas a counter suit has also been submitted by the contesting respondent which is numbered as 26 of 2013 and as such when the issue relates to the said adoption whether valid or not since is seized by the competent courts it is not open for revisional authority or the revenue authority to examine the validity of such adoption. It is only the factum of registration of deed will have to be seen by the revenue authority and to make appropriate mutation. For canvasing this submission, Mr. Shah, learned senior advocate has draw the attention to a provision contained under Section 135(C) of Gujarat Land Revenue Code and thereby submitted that once the registered deed is already presented or came to the notice of revenue authorities, it is the obligation to make appropriate mutation in respect of such delay and therefore, it is not open for the authorities below to question the validity of deed of adoption and thereto set aside the entry which has already been certified through valid process of law. To substantiate his submission, Mr. Shah, learned senior advocate has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision in the case of Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel through P.O.A. Holder Ashok J. Patel versus Kanchaben Nathubhai Patel and Ors. reported in 2005 (3) GLR 2233 and also a decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Raichand Kanjibhai Shah versus State of Gujarat reported in 2018 (0) AIJEL-HC-239027 and has reiterated his contention that once the deed has already been registered it is obligation on the part of authority to make appropriate mutation in the revenue proceedings and that has been done long back which ought not to have been unsettled by the authority. 4.3 Mr. Shah, learned senior advocate has further drawn the attention to the provisions contained under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 in which a presumption is attached to the registered document which is relating to an adoption and Section 16 has postulated such presumption to be raised by an authority once the document is registered and here is the case in which undisputedly the deed of adoption which has taken place is a registered deed and as such when the validity of it is seized and the controversy with regard to its validity is seized by the Civil Courts in appropriate proceeding it was not open for revenue authority to question even on the basis of provision contained under the Adoption Act and set aside the entry. Mr. Shah, learned senior advocate has thus submitted that exercise of discretion which is de hors the aforementioned proposition the orders are required to be corrected by setting aside the same. 4.4 Mr. Mr. Shah, learned senior advocate has thus submitted that exercise of discretion which is de hors the aforementioned proposition the orders are required to be corrected by setting aside the same. 4.4 Mr. Shah, learned senior advocate has further been contended that it is quite settled position of law that every exercise of discretion must be based upon sound principles which are already settled by catena of decision and further while exercising discretion the reasonable period ought to have been kept in mind and here is the case in which the delay is more than 20 years from the original date of transaction and the entry as well and as such in such a situation after unreasonable period of time, the authorities ought not to have questioned the entry which has already been certified and said settled position ought not to have been unsettled by beyond reasonable period and to canvas his submission, Mr. Shah, learned senior advocate has relied upon the decision delivered by the Court which is in the case of State of Gujarat versus Patel Raghav Natha and Ors. reported in 1969 (10) GLR 992. Considering the aforesaid principle, it is has been submitted that the orders passed by the authorities are quite erroneous and as such deserves to be set aside. 4.5 Additionally, it has been contended further that this point of delay has already been raised not only before the Collector in the proceedings of appeal but also specifically raised before the learned Secretary (Appeals) as well and for that purpose an attention has been drawn to the memo of appeal presented before the Collector as well as the written submissions which have been preferred in the proceedings before the learned Special Secretary and as such has submitted that non-dealing of contention which have been specifically raised is also a ground to set aside the order passed by the authority since the orders are perverse, contrary to settle position of law, the same are required to be quashed and set aside. It has further been submitted by learned senior advocate Mr. Shah that in a Suit No.26 of 2013 which has been filed by the contesting respondent against the order passed below Exh. It has further been submitted by learned senior advocate Mr. Shah that in a Suit No.26 of 2013 which has been filed by the contesting respondent against the order passed below Exh. 5 dated 15.11.2014 the petitioner preferred an appeal proceeding before the District Court at Godhra and vide order dated 23.03.2017 even the Appellate Court in the suit proceeding has directed the maintenance of status quo with regard to the said Revenue Entry No.494 including the status quo with regard to the disputed property and for that purpose, an attention has been drawn to page 347 of the petition compilation of an order dated 23.03.2017 and further has submitted that even the Coordinate Bench of this Court after hearing at length while admitting the petition has also ordered to maintain status quo with regard to Entry No.494 which was made on 26.06.1984, which came to be certified on 14.09.1989 and it is in the background of this fact the orders which have been passed if to be tested, the same deserves to be corrected and as such has requested to allow the petition. 4.6 Apart from that, Mr. Shah, learned senior advocate has further submitted that these revenue entries as per the settled position of law are having a presumptive and fiscal value and the same is not determining the title or the dispute which otherwise can be gone in to by the competent civil forum and as such this certification if the entry in question is maintained no prejudice is likely to cause because the said entry is always subject to the outcome of litigation which are pending between the parties and has submitted that no equitable will be claimed with regard to this entry if the litigation which is pending before the competent civil forum is going against the petitioner and as such has submitted that since the entry in question is always subject to the outcome of civil litigation the maintenance thereof on the record will not prejudice the respondent herein. In that view of the matter, when the order in question is not in consonance with the well settled proposition of law, as stated hereinabove, the same be set aside by granting relief as prayed for in the petition. 5. Mr. In that view of the matter, when the order in question is not in consonance with the well settled proposition of law, as stated hereinabove, the same be set aside by granting relief as prayed for in the petition. 5. Mr. Vijay Patel, learned advocate appearing for the contesting respondent has vehemently opposed the petition by contending that petition is against concurrent finding of facts of all the authorities below and as such extraordinary jurisdiction may not be exercised to unsettle the finding of fact which has been arrived at by the authority below. Additionally, it has been vehemently submitted that in the suit filed by the petitioner himself bearing Regular Civil Suit No.33 of 2008 which came to be dismissed against which the petitioner has filed a Regular Civil Appeal No.106 of 2007 which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 26.07.2021 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Mahisagar at Lunavada and as such when a controversy with regard to such adoption has not been accepted by the Civil Courts also there is hardly any case made out by the petitioner to sustain the entry which has been effected based upon such adoption deed and as such has submitted that this circumstance itself is sufficient enough to dismiss the petition. However, Mr. Patel, learned advocate has candidly submitted that there is no dispute with regard to proposition that revenue entries are for fiscal purpose and would not determine the title between the parties to the proceeding and the said entries are always subject to the outcome of civil litigation between the parties and therefore when that be the situation, no equity can be claimed by the present petitioner with regard to entry in question and has then left it to the discretion of the Court. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, it is undisputed fact prevailing on record that the present petitioner claiming to be an adopted son of deceased Kesrabhai Khant through registered adoption deed registered way back in the year 1984. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, it is undisputed fact prevailing on record that the present petitioner claiming to be an adopted son of deceased Kesrabhai Khant through registered adoption deed registered way back in the year 1984. After the death of said Kesrabhai Khant on 27.10.1987, the mutation has taken placed on the basis of said registered adoption deed in the form of Revenue Entry No. 494 on 26.06.1984 and the said entry has also been certified vide order dated 14.09.1989 and as such it is not in dispute that entry in question is based upon registered adoption deed and the said entry is certified with regard to the properties which are mentioned in the proceedings. 7. Further, it also clearly appears from the record that the opponent No.3 for the first time has presented an appeal before the Deputy Collector in the year 2008 challenging the said certification of Entry No. 494 made in favour of present petitioner and the Deputy Collector after entertaining the said appeal passed an order on 01.07.2009 allowing the appeal and consequently set aside the Revenue Entry No.494. This exercise of discretion is after almost a period of about 20 years and more. Under this circumstances, when this Court peruses the statutory provision contained under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 wherein Section 205 clearly suggests that no appeal shall be brought after the expiration of sixty days if the decision or order complained of have been passed by an officer inferior in rank to a Collector or a Superintendent of Survey in their respective departments; nor after the expiration of ninety days in any other case and in computing the above periods, the time required to prepare a copy of the decision or order appealed against shall be excluded. Section 206 which relates to admission of appeal after a period of limitation is clearly suggesting that any appeal under the Chapter may be admitted after the period of imitation but when the authority has satisfied whether sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay or not and as such by virtue of Sections 205 and 206, it appears that the discretion ignoring such provision ought not to have been exercised. 8. 8. Apart from that, it further appears from the record that with regard to this delay, a specific contention has been raised by the petitioner not only before the Collector but before the learned Secretary (Appeals) as well and as can be seen from the the memo of appeal as well as written submission filed by present petitioner before the authority which are placed on record and as such when in the context of such specific contention if this Court peruse the orders passed by the authorities, the said issue of delay has not been discussed, examined or adjudicated and as such there appears to be a clear non-dealing of such issue by the revenue authorities and hence, on this count also, the very exercise of discretion is not possible to be considered as just and proper. 9. In addition to this, it is not in dispute that the entry in question has been made on the basis of registered adoption deed effected in the year 1984 and by virtue of such registered adoption deed, the entry got certified way back in the month of September, 1989 and in view of well settled proposition of law laid down by the decisions which are brought before the Court that once the document is registered the revenue authorities are expected to make an appropriate mutation in the revenue record by giving effect to the same and it is not within the domain of revenue authorities to examine the validity of such document if it is registered one. Here in this case, undisputedly, the said adoption deed is the subject matter of controversy in the litigation which are pending before the appropriate Civil Courts forum and three suits in parallel were pending at a relevant point of time in which one Suit No.33 of 2008 has been dismissed against which an appeal also came to be dismissed but nonetheless the suit which has been filed by contesting respondent which is numbered as Regular Civil Suit No.26 of 2013 in which Exh.5 application was ordered against which the appeal which has been filed by present petitioner in which the status quo is ordered to be maintained with regard to the property in question as well as with regard to the situation prevailing of Entry No.494 by virtue of specific order dated 23.03.2017 and it is not pointed out before this Court as to whether this order is set aside, questioned before the higher forum or the same is operative or inoperative and as such when the record itself is indicative that the said order of 23.03.2017 is very much reflecting on the record on page 347 in which order of status quo is passed with regard to the situation prevailing of Entry No.494 there is no justifiable reason to unsettle the position which is already prevailing with regard to Entry No.494 and as such also, the orders which have been passed by the authorities are also deserves to be dealt with appropriately. 10. 10. It is further settled proposition of law that revenue entries are not determining title or creating or extinguishing any right it has got only fiscal value and the said entries are always subject to the outcome of litigation between the parties which are pending before the appropriate Civil Courts and as such when this be the situation, the Court see no reason to allow the impugned orders to be sustained in the eye of law more particularly when the learned senior advocate, on instructions, himself has stated that no equity will be claimed and the said entry would be strictly subject to the outcome of civil litigation which are pending and in this view of the matter, it appears to this Court that when the exercise of revenue authorities below is perverse not on the touch stone of settled principle of law and to some extent transgressing the jurisdiction by entering into validity of registered adoption deed, this court see no reason to allow such orders to operate. Hence, the case is made out by the petitioner to extend the relief as prayed for in the petition. 11. Accordingly, following order is passed which would meet the ends of justice:- (i) The present petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned orders dated 26.06.2010 passed by the District Collector, Panchmahal in RTS/APPEAL No.20/09/washi/ 1403 TO 1407 and the order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) and also an order passed by the respondent Deputy Collector on 01.07.2010 are quashed and set aside. (iii) It is made clear that the Revenue Entry No.494 which is made by revenue authorities and certified on 14.09.1989 is subject to the outcome of civil proceedings which are pending between the parties as referred to above and as mentioned the petitioner will not claim any equity about the Entry No.494 which is made subject to the outcome of civil litigation. (iv) While passing this order, the Court has refrained itself from expressing any opinion on merit with regard to the center of controversy about registered adoption deed and it is open for both the sides to agitate the said contention on merit before appropriate forum. (v) Rule is made absolute accordingly.