ORDER : Mr Anshin Desai, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr Shrenik R. Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner has tendered draft amendments. Amendments are allowed in terms of the drafts. The same shall be carried out forthwith. 2. Mr Anshin Desai, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr Shrenik Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the issue revolves around entry no.2725 which, came to be disallowed by the Circle Officer, Mundra vide order dated 3.3.2017. It is submitted that the said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Prant Officer and thereafter before the Collector; however, in the revision application filed before the learned Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “learned Secretary”), it allowed vide order dated 20.7.2022 and directed mutation of the entry with respect to survey no.46 in favour of respondent no.10. 2.1 It is submitted that while doing so, the learned Secretary, failed to appreciate that entry no.2725 was posted in the revenue record on the strength of letter of administration but the land bearing survey no.46 (hereinafter referred to as the “land in question”) was not forming part of the letter of administration and therefore, the revision application ought to have been rejected. It is further submitted that while directing mutation of the entry the learned Secretary, almost decided the issue of the heirship declaring the respondent no.10 as the only heir of Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja. The said aspect, could not have been touched by the learned Secretary in the RTS proceedings. 2.2 It is next submitted that the respondent no.10, had filed a civil miscellaneous application no.33 of 2010 before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj under the provisions of section 290 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1925”). During its pendency, settlement came to be arrived at between the petitioner on one hand and the respondent no.10 on the other. The said settlement, was restricted to survey nos.24, 36/3, 60/2, 244/3, 244/4 and 255; however, survey no.46 i.e. the land in question, was neither forming part of the said proceedings nor the settlement. During its pendency, settlement came to be arrived at between the petitioner on one hand and the respondent no.10 on the other. The said settlement, was restricted to survey nos.24, 36/3, 60/2, 244/3, 244/4 and 255; however, survey no.46 i.e. the land in question, was neither forming part of the said proceedings nor the settlement. 2.3 It is next submitted that survey no.46 i.e. the land in question was the subject matter of the proceedings under the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1958”) and therefore, the civil miscellaneous application no.33 of 2010 filed by the respondent no.10 did not contain survey no.46 i.e. the land in question. It is only when the land in question was directed not to be of ownership of Gorbai Khima Nagshi Harijan that respondent no.10, applied for mutation of the entry, on the strength of the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge in civil miscellaneous application no.33 of 2010. 2.4 It is submitted that in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar Gorbai Khima Nagshi Harijan was declared as owner of the land in question. The petitioner, being the legal heir of Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector who, rejected the same. The said order of rejection was challenged before the District Collector by the petitioner which also came to be rejected vide order dated 15.4.2013 and the orders were thereafter challenged before the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) which, quashed the order of the Mamlatdar dated 14.11.2006. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by Gorbai Khima Nagshi Harijan before this Court by way of writ petition being Special Civil Application no.17591 of 2013 and this Court, was kind enough to dispose of the matter with a direction to the Mamlatdar to decide it afresh, after hearing the parties. The Mamlatdar & ALT, Mundra, thereafter, passed an order dated 11.4.2022 whereby, the application by Gorbai Khima Nagshi Harijan came to be rejected. Therefore, all through out, it was the petitioner, who had pursued the proceedings and as a result whereof, survey no.46 i.e. the land in question, was declared not to be of the occupation and ownership of Gorbai Khima Nagshi Harijan. Therefore, all through out, it was the petitioner, who had pursued the proceedings and as a result whereof, survey no.46 i.e. the land in question, was declared not to be of the occupation and ownership of Gorbai Khima Nagshi Harijan. 2.5 It is further submitted that taking advantage of the proceedings, which were pursued by the petitioner, the respondent no.10 filed an application for mutation of her name in the revenue record with respect to survey no.46 i.e. the land in question. It is submitted that the Circle Officer, Mundra, did not entertain the application for mutation of the name of the respondent no.10 since the land in question, was not forming part of the judgment dated 23.12.2011 of which entry no.2259 dated 3.3.2017 has already been posted in the revenue record. The Prant Officer noted that since the land in question, was not forming part of the said judgment dated 23.12.2011, entry cannot be mutated. So was the position and conclusion by the learned Collector. Therefore, all the three authorities namely Circle Officer, Prant Officer and the Collector, concurrently held that the entry in the name of respondent no.10 cannot be posted with respect to survey no.46 i.e. the land in question since the same was not forming part of the judgment dated 23.12.2011. As against this, the learned Secretary, adopting totally different stand, noted that the respondent no.10 has been declared as heir of late Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja and his name has to be posted in the revenue record. It is submitted that it was impermissible to the learned Secretary to act as a civil court holding the respondent no.10 as the only legal heir of Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja. 2.6 It is next submitted that taking advantage of the order dated 20.7.2022, the respondent no.10 applied for mutation of the entry and entry no.3319 dated 8.8.2022, has been posted in the revenue record flouting the provisions of sub-rule (4a) of Rule 107 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1972”). It is submitted that without issuing any statutory notice, the Mamlatdar, showing undue haste and in illegal manner, within a period of 10 days, certified the entry no.3319 on 8.8.2022. It is submitted that without issuing any statutory notice, the Mamlatdar, showing undue haste and in illegal manner, within a period of 10 days, certified the entry no.3319 on 8.8.2022. It is submitted that as per the amendment in the Rules of 1972, when an entry of an order is to be made, then, notice has to be issued under section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code of 1879”) and it is only when no objections are raised, that the entry shall be certified within a period of 10 days from the date of service of last notice. In the present case, considering the sequence of events, the provisions have been totally disregarded and the officer, in connivance with respondent no.10 and only with a view to seeing that her name is reflected, that the entry has been posted. 2.7 It is further submitted that immediately thereafter the respondent no.10 has transferred the land to the third party. Surprisingly, in the sale deed, the respondent no.10 has stated about all the proceedings except the captioned writ petition, which was filed and pending hearing. It is submitted that the said sale transaction, has been executed only with a view to seeing that equity is created. No genuine person would purchase a parcel of land wherein, the order on the strength of which the name of respondent no.10 has been posted in the revenue record is the subject matter of challenge before the High Court. It is submitted that such conduct on the part of respondent no.10, disentitles her and entitles the petitioner to seek interim protection; else, there will be a multiplicity of proceedings, rendering the petition infructuous. 2.8 It is therefore urged that considering the facts involved, the order of the learned Secretary, deserves to be suspended so that irreversible situation is not created by the respondent no.10 and/or the third party in whose favour the sale transaction has been executed. 3. Mr R. S. Sanjanwala, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr Amar D. Mithani, learned advocate for the respondent no.10 has vehemently opposed the entertainment of the writ petition and grant of interim relief. It is submitted that the petitioner, if at all, is desirous of seeking any interim protection, it has to be on the strength of prima facie case and balance of convenience. It is submitted that the petitioner, if at all, is desirous of seeking any interim protection, it has to be on the strength of prima facie case and balance of convenience. The arguments advanced by the petitioner are mainly on balance of convenience and not the prima facie case. It is submitted that without pointing out any prima facie case in his favour, the petitioner is seeking injunction in the RTS proceedings. Apart from this, the order of the learned Secretary, is acted upon and entry is mutated. Though the objection was raised, the same has been set aside and the entry is certified. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that the land in question belonged to Hasam Allarakhaiya Khoja i.e. grandfather of present respondent no.10 and pursuant to the order dated 20.7.2022 that the entry, has been posted in the revenue record. 3.1 It is submitted that in the civil miscellaneous application no.33 of 2010, the respondent no.10, has claimed that she is the sole heir of Hasam Allarakhaiya Khoja who, had only son Abdulrasul Hasam Allarakhaiya Khoja i.e. the father of respondent no.10 and therefore, the respondent no.10, is a straight line descendant. It is further submitted that the petitioner, had raised the objection to the grant of letter of administration of the estate of Hasam Allarakhaiya Khoja, in civil miscellaneous application no.33 of 2010. The learned civil judge, has framed the issue no.4 i.e. “whether the objector proves that they are the heirs of deceased Hasam Allarakhaiya Khoja and that the applicant alone, is not entitled to get the succession certificate.” In the proceedings through out, it was the specific case of the respondent no.10 that she is the sole heir. In spite of the said specific stand, known to the petitioner so also the issue framed, given the chance to the petitioner to prove his right, the petitioner, has willingly and unconditionally withdrawn the objections raised by submitting the purshis. 3.2 It is next submitted that in the proceedings being civil miscellaneous application no.33 of 2010, the petitioner, entered into a settlement and has willingly forgone his right to be declared as heir of Hasam Allarakhaiya Khoja. The issue framed in that regard has been decided in favour of respondent no.10 declaring her as a sole heir. 3.2 It is next submitted that in the proceedings being civil miscellaneous application no.33 of 2010, the petitioner, entered into a settlement and has willingly forgone his right to be declared as heir of Hasam Allarakhaiya Khoja. The issue framed in that regard has been decided in favour of respondent no.10 declaring her as a sole heir. It is submitted that learned civil court, Bhuj had vide judgment dated 23.12.2011, declared respondent no.10 as a sole legal heir and successor of late Hasam Allarakhaiya Khoja and as a result whereof, letter of administration is issued in favour of respondent no.10 being the granddaughter. It is submitted that the said judgment dated 23.12.2011 was subject matter of challenge before the learned 4th Additional District Judge, not by the petitioner but by some other parties, which also came to be rejected. Therefore, it is more than clear that respondent no.10 is the sole legal heir of late Hasam Allarakhaiya Khoja. 3.3 It is submitted that so far as the proceeding initiated by the petitioner being civil miscellaneous application no.17 of 2015 is concerned, the same was objected to and has been converted into a regular civil suit. The petitioner, if really wanted to be declared as a heir, could have asked for injunction; however, till date, neither the suit is finally decided nor injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner. The said suit is pending consideration and therefore, in absence of any injunction in favour of the petitioner, in RTS proceedings, no relief can be granted. 3.4 It is further submitted that vide order dated 20.7.2022, the learned Secretary, neither has conferred any additional right upon the respondent no.10 nor has decided any civil right of the parties. The learned Secretary has only exhibited the dictum of the learned civil judge declaring the respondent no.10 as heir. Learned Secretary has specifically observed and considered pendency of civil suit no. 233 of 2018 which has been made binding on all the parties. Therefore, the petition need not be entertained and no protection may be granted. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Issue notice, returnable on 17.1.2023. So far as the request for suspending the order dated 20.7.2022 is concerned, the same is rejected considering the facts involved and the reasons discussed hereinafter. 5. Therefore, the petition need not be entertained and no protection may be granted. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Issue notice, returnable on 17.1.2023. So far as the request for suspending the order dated 20.7.2022 is concerned, the same is rejected considering the facts involved and the reasons discussed hereinafter. 5. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent no.10 has preferred civil miscellaneous application no.33 of 2010 seeking grant of letter of administration for various parcels of land namely survey nos.24, 36/3, 60/2, 244/3, 244/4 and 255. Survey no.46, was not forming part of the said proceeding. In the said proceeding, various issues came to be framed including the issue about the respondent no.10 being the sole heir of Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja. During the pendency, the petitioner entered into a settlement with the respondent no.10 executing settlement purshis, with respect to the lands indicated in the application, which fact is recorded in the judgment that the objector has filed his objections vide exhibit 34 and vide exhibit 42 has withdrawn his objection and therefore, issue no.4 is answered in negative. 6. Furthermore, issue no.2 was “whether the applicant i.e. respondent no.10 proves that she is the legal heir of late Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja and Abdulrasul Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja”. Issue no.2, was decided together with issue nos. 1 and 3 and all the issues were answered in affirmative on the ground that the applicant i.e. respondent no.10 has been able to prove all the three issues. The respondent no.10, was therefore declared as the legal heir of Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja and Abdulrasul Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja. In the operative portion, while accepting the application of respondent no.10, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge declared that the lands were of the ownership of late Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja and allowed the respondent no.10 to administer the said property. 7. Apropos the said judgment, the letter of administration under section 290 of the Act of 1925 came to be issued with respect to the lands bearing survey nos.24, 36/3, 60/2, 244/3, 244/4 and 255. The judgment, dated 23.12.2011 was challenged before the District Court, Bhuj-Kutch in Regular Civil Appeal no.2 of 2012, and it vide judgment dated 5.3.2012, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment dated 23.12.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kutch. The judgment, dated 23.12.2011 was challenged before the District Court, Bhuj-Kutch in Regular Civil Appeal no.2 of 2012, and it vide judgment dated 5.3.2012, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment dated 23.12.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kutch. The judgment of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kutch as well as of District Court, Bhuj-Kutch, have not been challenged before the higher forum. 8. At this stage, reference to the proceedings under the Act of 1958 would be relevant. Gorbai Khima Nagshi Harijan claimed to be the tenant of the land bearing survey no.46, so also the heirs. The Mamlatdar, Bhuj-Kutch vide order dated 14.11.2006 declared them as tenants which, was unsuccessfully challenged before the Deputy Collector and Collector. In revision before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has concluded that the order of the Collector was without jurisdiction and allowed the same. Against which, writ petition being Special Civil Application no.17591 of 2013 was preferred before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 3.7.2015 disposed of the writ petition setting aside the order dated 12.9.2013 of the Tribunal. The matter was relegated to the Mamlatdar & ALT, Bhuj to decide it afresh, who vide order dated 11.4.2022, rejected the application of the heirs of Khima Nagshi and Gorbai Khima Nagshi Harijan under the provisions of section 46, 48 and 50 of the Act of 1958. Therefore, the land in question was released from the purview of the Act of 1958. 9. Notably, the respondent no.10, somewhere in the year 2017, submitted an application to the Circle Officer, Mundra requesting it to mutate her name in the revenue record with respect to survey no.46 and entry no.2725 dated 18.1.2017 was posted; but, the same came to be cancelled on the ground of entry no.2259 already been posted in the revenue record. Also, survey no.46, was not forming part of the judgment dated 23.12.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kutch. The order was subject matter of challenge before the Prant Officer, Mundra who, did not interfere with the order of the Circle Officer and rejected the application. The appeal before the Collector, met with the same fate. What weighed with the Collector, was that as per the judgment, entry no.2725 has been posted in the revenue record with respect to survey nos.24, 36/3, 60/2, 244/3, 244/4 and 255. The appeal before the Collector, met with the same fate. What weighed with the Collector, was that as per the judgment, entry no.2725 has been posted in the revenue record with respect to survey nos.24, 36/3, 60/2, 244/3, 244/4 and 255. Whereas, survey no.46 is not forming part of the judgment. Therefore, the common thread running through all three orders, is that survey no.46, has not been mentioned in the judgment passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kutch in civil miscellaneous application no.33 of 2010 and that entry no.2259 has been posted in the revenue record. 10. The respondent no.10, being aggrieved, preferred an application before the learned Secretary who, vide order dated 20.7.2022, has allowed the revision application. What weighed with the learned Secretary was the proceeding in connection with civil miscellaneous application no.33 of 2010 and the judgment passed thereon so also the issuance of letter of administration in favour of respondent no.10. The learned Secretary, after recording the sequence of events, took note of the order dated 12.9.2013 passed by the Tribunal and mutation of the entry no.2430 with respect to survey no.46 and certification thereof. The learned Secretary, has also opined that the name of the grand father of the respondent no.10, has been posted in the revenue record and she being the heir of Shri Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja, it would be proper to enter her name in the revenue record with respect to survey no.46. The learned Secretary, is also of the opinion that if the opponent i.e. the petitioner has any objection about the competence of the heirship of the respondent no.10, he can very will take the recourse of the civil proceedings. 11. Perceptibly, in the prima facie opinion of this Court no right at this stage can be said to have been accrued in favour of the petitioner considering the fact that; the petitioner in the proceeding being civil miscellaneous application no.33 of 2010 had entered into a settlement and accepted the respondent no.10 as the legal heir of the Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja and Abdulrasul Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja. Resultantly, the issue no.2 that is as to “whether the applicant the respondent no.10 proves that she is the heir of Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja and Abdulrasul Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja” has been answered in affirmative. Resultantly, the issue no.2 that is as to “whether the applicant the respondent no.10 proves that she is the heir of Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja and Abdulrasul Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja” has been answered in affirmative. Pertinently the respondent no.10 has been declared as the heir of Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja and Abdulrasul Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja and the appeal against the said judgment has been dismissed vide judgment dated 5.3.2012. The petitioner has accepted the said judgment dated 23.12.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kutch in civil miscellaneous application no.33 of 2010. Apart from this, the petitioner has also preferred an application being civil miscellaneous application no.17 of 2015 seeking declaration that he may be declared as successor of the land owner. Owing to the objections, the said civil miscellaneous application no.17 of 2015, has been converted into civil suit no.234 of 2018. The said suit, is still pending without any order. 12. Therefore, if one is to examine the claim of the respondent no.10 vis-a-vis the claim of the petitioner, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, it leans in favour of the respondent no.10 rather than the petitioner. In view of the aforementioned discussion, this Court is in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.10 that the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, are mainly on balance of convenience and not the prima facie case. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is yet to establish his right over the land in question as against this, there is letter of administration issued in favour of respondent no.10 may be with respect to other parcels of land. Moreover, respondent no.10 has been declared to be the legal heir of Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja. 13. Pertinently, there is no dispute to the proposition that the entries in the revenue record are only for the fiscal purpose and does not confer any right, title or interest. Moreover, respondent no.10 has been declared to be the legal heir of Hasam Allarakhiya Khoja. 13. Pertinently, there is no dispute to the proposition that the entries in the revenue record are only for the fiscal purpose and does not confer any right, title or interest. If at all, the petitioner succeeds in procuring the certificate, letter of administration, it will be for him to get his name entered in the revenue record; however, at this stage, considering the factual aspects in juxtaposition with the judgment of the learned Principal Civil Judge; the order dated 20.7.2022 passed by the learned Secretary does not require to be stayed and hence, request of the petitioner for stay of the operation, implementation and execution of the order is hereby rejected.