JUDGMENT : 1. Both these petitions are filed by the petitioner against the same order of the Learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department ("Ld. SSRD" for short) passed in two separate Revision Applications filed by the petitioner as well as private respondents. Therefore, both have been admitted together and heard together. 2. Special Civil Application No. 5448 of 2018 is treated as a lead matter and necessary facts narrated from the same is taken as common facts are alleged in both the petitions. 3. The respective petitioner has filed the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. SSRD dated 08.02.2018 in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/AMD/167 of 2017, whereby order of subordinate authorities have been confirmed and the revision applications filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 4. Special Civil Application No. 5449 of 2019 is passed against the same order whereby the Revision Application filed by the private respondents being No. MVV/HKP/AMD/ 172 of 2017 came to be allowed. 5. The brief facts of both the petitions, in nutshell, are as under: 5.1 Father of the petitioner namely Dilawarshinh Vaghela joined in Kuchchh State Force on 23.06.1942 and continued his service till 23.11.1949. He became Jail Superintendent of Kutch Central Prison and thereafter, was serving in Sabarmati Central Jail. He was murdered while on duty. The State Government on 29.11.1977 allotted lands situated at Block Nos. 114, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126 and 127 of Village Visalpur, Tal. Daskroi, Dist. Ahmedabad, admeasuring 14 Acres and 29 Gunthas to the mother of the petitioner namely Kusumba Dilawarshinh Vaghela. The lands were given to mother of the petitioner on permanent basis by the State Government and consideration of 12 patt was paid by his mother only at the time of allotment of the lands in question. Entry No.6265 was mutated in revenue records in the name of the petitioner's mother. Initially, the said order of 29.11.1977 was taken into revision by the State Government and was cancelled by order dated 22.01.1979. Entry No.6265 was mutated in revenue records in the name of the petitioner's mother. Initially, the said order of 29.11.1977 was taken into revision by the State Government and was cancelled by order dated 22.01.1979. The said order was challenged by mother of the petitioner by filing Special Civil Application No.422 of 1979 before this Court, which came to be withdrawn and at that time, the State Government, based on its own policy, re-granted the said lands as a special case by order dated 30.03.1992 and thus, the lands remained with the petitioner's mother and her name was restored. 5.2 That the lands in question were converted into old tenure land by order dated 30.03.1999 of the Mamlatdar and necessary premium was paid by petitioner's mother individually and thereafter, land has been shown as old tenure lands. 5.3 That during lifetime of petitioner's mother, Entry No.7764 was mutated in the revenue record for the lands in question wherein, it was stated that the petitioner and private respondents are the co-owners/co-shares of the lands in question. The said entry came to be cancelled as it was mutated without consent and without hearing petitioner's mother - Kusumba. Thus, this fact has become final and it has not been challenged by anybody. 5.4 That during lifetime of petitioner's mother at her instance, Entry No.7869 was mutated on 15.04.2009, wherein petitioner's name was entered as co-shares of lands in question along with his mother and same entry was certified. 5.5 Petitioner's mother executed a registered Will dated 31.08.2007, wherein lands in question were bequeathed to the present petitioner. There were averments which revealed that private respondents have been given their shares from the other properties, and therefore, the lands in question were solely bequeathed to the petitioner. 5.6 That Entry No.7869, which was made showing the petitioner as co-shares with his mother, came to be challenged by the private respondents by filing (Old RTS Appeal No.825 of 2011) New RTS Appeal No.574 of 2011 on 12.07.2011 and application was filed for condonation of delay as there was delay of more than two years. Meanwhile, petitioner's mother passed away on 20.12.2011. The Deputy Collector, without deciding the application of condonation of delay straightaway heard the revision on merits and quashed the Entry No.7869 and the said proceedings the Deputy Collector quashed the entry on the ground that lands in question would devolved upon all heirs. Meanwhile, petitioner's mother passed away on 20.12.2011. The Deputy Collector, without deciding the application of condonation of delay straightaway heard the revision on merits and quashed the Entry No.7869 and the said proceedings the Deputy Collector quashed the entry on the ground that lands in question would devolved upon all heirs. 5.7 That, Mamlatdar has also passed order dated 25.10.2012 cancelling the Entry No.8928, which was based upon the Will. The petitioner challenged the said order of the Mamlatdar by preferring Revision Application No.173 of 2012 before the District Collector on 28.06.2012, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2013. This order of the Collector was challenged by the petitioner by filing Revision Application No. MVV/HAKAP/AMAD/54/2013 before Ld. SSRD, which came to be dismissed on 20.05.2015. Against the said order, petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.9006 of 2015 before this Court. 5.8 Meanwhile, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Application (Probate) No.56 of 2012 before the Civil Court to get probate of Will of his mother; the same had been objected by the private respondents. The petitioner preferred Revision Application before the Ld. SSRD, which came to be dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.18529 of 2013, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 22.12.2014 with direction to the Ld. SSRD to decide the revision application expeditiously. Against the order of the cancellation of the revenue entry based upon a Will by the Mamlatdar vide order dated 25.10.2012, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.15 of 2013 before the Deputy Collector, which was dismissed. The Mamlatdar has also cancelled the heirship entry of the private respondents being Entry No.8897. 5.9 Meanwhile, the petitioner has also filed application in the probate matter for interim injunction wherein, order of status quo was passed by the Trial Court. Against which, petitioner preferred Appeal from order No. 252 of 2016, wherein this Court granted interim relief against the order of the Trial Court. 5.10 Against the order passed by the Deputy Collector in Appeal No.15 of 2013, the petitioner preferred Revision Application no.858 of 2015 before the Ld. District Collector. At the same time, as the heirship entry was cancelled by the Mamlatdar vide his order dated 23.10.2012, the private respondents have also preferred an Appeal No.126 of 2013 before the Deputy Collector, which came to be rejected vide order dated 11.09.2015. District Collector. At the same time, as the heirship entry was cancelled by the Mamlatdar vide his order dated 23.10.2012, the private respondents have also preferred an Appeal No.126 of 2013 before the Deputy Collector, which came to be rejected vide order dated 11.09.2015. Being aggrieved by this order of the Deputy Collector, the private respondents have preferred Revision Application No.829 of 2015 before the District Collector. 5.11 The Ld. District Collector has disposed of both the Revision Application Nos. 829 and 858 of 2015 by common order dated 31.03.2017. 5.12 Being aggrieved by this order passed in Revision Application preferred by the petitioner bearing No.858 of 2015, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/AMD/167 of 2017, whereas private respondents preferred Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/AMD/172 of 2017 challenging the order of the District Collector passed in their Revision Application No. 829 of 2015. By the common order, the Ld. SSRD has rejected the revision filed by the present petitioner being No.167 of 2017 and has allowed the Revision Application No. 172 of 2017 of the private respondents. This order of Ld. SSRD has given rise to filing of two separate Special Civil Applications by the petitioner, one for restoration of the revenue entry based upon a Will and one against confirming the entry made based upon heirship. 5.13 It appears from the records that neither the State Government nor the private respondents have filed any affidavit-in-reply in both the petitions. 6. Heard learned Counsel Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the petitioner, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Asst. Government Pleader for the State and Senior Counsel Mr. M.B. Gandhi with Cinmay M. Gandhi, learned advocate for the private respondents for both the petitions at length. Perused the material placed on the record and the decision cited at Bar. 7. Learned Counsel Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated in the Memo of petition and which are referred to hereinabove as a brief facts. Mr. Majumdar has submitted that the lands in question were allotted to the petitioner's mother individually and it was her personal property. According to him, under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, one can dispose of her own property as per her wish. Mr. Majumdar has submitted that the lands in question were allotted to the petitioner's mother individually and it was her personal property. According to him, under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, one can dispose of her own property as per her wish. He has submitted that the lands in question are not an ancestral property, and therefore, the respondents cannot have any right of heirship in the property as the deceased i.e. petitioner's mother has executed a registered Will and has bequeathed entire lands in question in favour of the petitioner. He has submitted that since the property is situated with in the Gujarat, in view of the provisions contained in the Indian Succession Act, there is no need to obtain any probate for execution in respect of the registered Will. Mr. Majumdar has submitted that however, as a precautionary action, the petitioner has applied of probate of the Will. Mr. Majmudar while referring to the Will has submitted that there is a clear averment in the Will that the mother has given other property to the private respondents, and therefore, she has bequeathed the entire lands in question to the present petitioner. He has submitted that since the Will was registered one, it is incumbent upon part of the revenue authority to make entry in revenue record as per Section 135(C) of the Land Revenue Code. He has submitted that the Will in question is still not set aside by any Court. He also submitted that the probate proceedings is also pending. However, since the Will is registered one and the entry made on the registered document cannot be set aside by the revenue authority. He has also submitted that revenue authority has no right to decide civil rights of the parties in the RTS proceedings. He has submitted that the authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction in cancelling the entry made on the basis of the Will. 7.1 Mr. Majmudar has also submitted that the heirship entry got entered by the respondents is against the wishes of the deceased as by virtue of Will, she has bequeathed her personal property entirely in favour of the petitioner, and therefore, the order of the Mamlatdar cancelling the heirship entry was proper one and therefore, Ld. SSRD ought not to have interfered with the order of subordinate authority of cancelling the heirship entry. SSRD ought not to have interfered with the order of subordinate authority of cancelling the heirship entry. He has also submitted that the entry based upon the Will ought to have been challenged by the respondents within the period of 60 days. However, he has preferred RTS appeal after almost 2/½ years and without deciding the delay condone application the Deputy Collector has straightaway decided the matter which is absolutely illegal. He has submitted that considering the facts of the case since the revenue authority has no rights to go into the questions of title of the property in the RTS proceedings, the impugned order passed by the Ld. SSRD rejecting the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner and allowing the Revision Application of the private respondents is completely not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7.2 He has also submitted that the authority has misdirected itself by observing that the lands are of new tenure land. He has submitted that from the revenue record itself, it reveals that the lands are already converted to old tenure land by the Mamlatdar, and therefore, the observations regarding lands being of new tenure land is erroneous on the part of the authority concerned. Mr. Majmudar has submitted to allow both the petitions. He has relied upon the following decisions: I. In case of Mumtaz Mehmoodkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat; reported in 2003 JX (Guj.) 199 wherein it has held in Paragraph - 5 as under:- "In view of the aforesaid, I find that it had come on record that the entry was mutated in the year 1981 on the basis of the registered will and when it had come on record before the Secretary of the State Government that Civil Suit which is preferred by the respondents nos.3, 4 and 5 is pending in the Civil Court and earlier entry came to be mutated on the basis of the registered will, the Secretary ought to have relegated respondents nos.3, 4 and 5 to await until the outcome of Civil Suit No.972 of 1993. He ought not to have observed for examining the right on the basis of succession over the property in question. When the basis of the right of the petitioner is on a registered will, unless the Court makes a declaration that the will is unlawful or is otherwise, the successory right over the property cannot be asserted. He ought not to have observed for examining the right on the basis of succession over the property in question. When the basis of the right of the petitioner is on a registered will, unless the Court makes a declaration that the will is unlawful or is otherwise, the successory right over the property cannot be asserted. I am not expressing any final opinion on the said aspects since the civil suit is pending before the appropriate Court but, suffice it to say that the Secretary of the State Government ought not to have dismissed the revision by observing that until the suit is decided the revenue officer can examine the matter on the basis of the successory right over the property in question and therefore in my view the Secretary has committed an error which is apparent on the face of the record and it can also be said that he has exceeded in exercise of the jurisdiction while deciding the revision application." II. In case of Chhimiben Wd/o Hirabhai Gopalbhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2006 (3) GLR 2455 wherein it has held in Paragraph - 4 as under:- "It is by now well settled that the entry in the revenue record neither confers any additional right over the property nor takes away or alters the rights in the property, which otherwise exist as per the provisions of the Transfer of Properties Act or other law and such entries are having value for fiscal purposes. It appears that there is delay on the part of the respondent No. 5 in challenging the decision of the authority mutating the entry. However, the contentions on the part of respondent No. 5 are two fold; one is that the mandatory procedure is not followed and another is that the Will is a fraud. Whether the mandatory procedure is followed or not and whether the Will is genuine or not is an aspect, which can conveniently be examined in the proceedings of the Civil Suit which has been filed by the petitioners being Civil Suit No. 664/05. Therefore, until such finding is arrived at in the Suit that the mandatory procedure is not followed or that the Will is not genuine, the entry can be allowed to be continued on revenue record subject to the outcome of the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 664/05. Therefore, until such finding is arrived at in the Suit that the mandatory procedure is not followed or that the Will is not genuine, the entry can be allowed to be continued on revenue record subject to the outcome of the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 664/05. In the event, the respondent No. 5 succeeds in the Suit, appropriate recording will have to be made in the revenue record and the rights of the parties may prevail accordingly. Until such declaration is given by the Civil Court that the Will is not genuine or that the mandatory procedure is not followed, it was not required for the State Government to give a declaration that the entry was a nullity and even the subsequent entry which was not subject matter of the proceedings of the revision could not be cancelled. No further discussion is required in this regard since the position of the law is settled. The reference may be given to the decision of this Court in the case of Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel through P.A.O. Holder Ashok J. Patel v. Kanchaben Nathubhai Patel and Ors. reported at 2005(3) GLR 2233 . Of course, it was a case of a Registered Sale Deed, but in the present case, since the entry was based on the Will and it is continued on record for a long time and the Civil Court may also be required to examine as to whether probate was a mandatory requirement in a Will executed by Hindu when the property is not situated in Bombay, Madras or Calcutta, the same analogy as it was observed in case of Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel(Supra) can be made applicable even in the facts of the present case." III. In case of Minaxiben Shashikantbhai Patel Vs. In case of Minaxiben Shashikantbhai Patel Vs. District Collector, Gandhinagar reported in 2007 (1) GLR 277 wherein it has held in Paragraph - 10 as under:- "Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal position that for a Will executed by a Hindu qua the immovable property situated outside the territory of original civil jurisdiction of High Court of Bombay and Madras, the Probate is not compulsory for establishing the rights in the property as the property in the present case is situated in Gandhinagar, even without probate the legatee who is the petitioner in the present case can establish the rights pursuant to the Will executed by deceased Chandubhai Jivabhai Patel who is admittedly Hindu. Hence, the stand of the District Collector insisting the probate for the Will in question cannot be sustained in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside." 8. Learned Asst. Government Pleader Ms. Tripathi for the State has submitted that various litigations are pending with the parties. She has submitted that the order of the Collector and the SSRD are proper one. She has submitted that the order has been subject to the order of the Civil Court in respect to the entries, and therefore, according to her version, the petitions may be dismissed. 9. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Gandhi for the private respondents has vehemently submitted that there are three rounds of litigations between the parties. He has submitted that the lands were allotted to the petitioner's mother due to death of husband while he was on duty and therefore, the lands cannot be the personal property of the deceased Kusumba Vaghela. While referring to the allotment letter, he has submitted that there is a condition of non-alienation, and therefore, without the prior permission of the authority, she could not alienate or transfer the lands in favour of the petitioner. He has submitted that as per the condition No.6, the owner of the lands is of the government, and therefore, order of conversion of lands from new tenure land to old tenure land is nullity. He has submitted that according to the policy of 1960, the lands were allotted to deceased Kusumba as her husband was murdered while he was on duty. He has submitted that according to the policy of 1960, the lands were allotted to deceased Kusumba as her husband was murdered while he was on duty. He has also submitted that as per the conditions incorporated in the allotment letter, transfer is completely prohibited and if the property is bequeathed by Will, it is one type of transfer of the lands, and therefore, it will be in breach of the condition of the allotment. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Gandhi has also submitted that the private respondent has right and title in the said lands as he is the brother of the petitioner. He has also submitted that since the lands were not a personal property of the deceased, aggrieved heirs of the deceased are entitled to have a share in the property and accordingly heirship entry was mutated in the revenue record, which has been wrongly cancelled by the order of the Mamlatdar, which was now rectified by the Ld. SSRD. According to him, the Ld. SSRD has properly appreciated the facts and has rightly allowed the revision preferred by the private respondents for restoration of entry of heirship. 9.1 Ld. Senior Counsel Mr. Gandhi has also submitted that the entry based upon a Will was not proper one as the petitioner has not obtained any probate and the Will itself is under challenge. He has also submitted that since the deceased cannot transfer the property as per the condition of the allotment letter, bequeathing of a property by Will is nullity itself. Therefore, according to him, the Mamlatdar and all the revenue authorities have properly cancelled the entry based upon a Will. He has submitted that since the dispute regarding the Will and title to the property is subjudice and pending before the Civil Court, the present petitions deserve to be dismissed. 9.2 He has also submitted that the petitioner herein has challenged the order of status quo passed by the Civil Court by preferring the appeal from order and the same is pending before this Court, and therefore, also this petition be dismissed and even it is decided then there might be a conflicting decision pertaining to the same matter. Mr. Gandhi has relied upon the decision reported in Chhimiben Wd/o Hirabhai (Supra). He has prayed to dismiss both the petitions. 10. In rejoinder, learned counsel Mr. Mr. Gandhi has relied upon the decision reported in Chhimiben Wd/o Hirabhai (Supra). He has prayed to dismiss both the petitions. 10. In rejoinder, learned counsel Mr. Majumdar for the petitioner has submitted that since the lands were already converted from new tenure land to old tenure land, all the conditions of allotment has fells into insignificance, and therefore, all the submissions made upon conditions of original grant cannot be accepted. He has also submitted that even the government has not challenged the Will on the ground that there is breach of conditions of the allotment. He has prayed to allow both the petitions. 11. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides coupled with the material placed on record and the citations which are cited at Bar, it emerges that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner and the private respondents are not stranger. It is also undisputed fact that the present petitioner and respondent No.6 Balbhadrasinh Dilawarsinh Vaghela are real brothers and deceased Kusumba Dilawarsinh Vaghela was mother of both of them. It is admitted fact that lands in question were allotted to deceased Kusumba. It appears from the record that lands were allotted to deceased as a special case in consequence of the government policies of 1960's and various amendments made thereafter. It also reveals that initially lands were allotted and thereafter, same was taken into revision and order was cancelled. However, the lands were re-granted to her. It also appears from the record that on 30.03.1999, the lands in question came to be converted into old tenure land from new tenure land as per the order of Mamlatdar, which is placed on record at Page-58 in the matter. In the said order various conditions have been incorporated which restricts only right of the holder from changing the use from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose. There is no restrictions in the said order against the alienation in any manner of the lands in question. Thus, the very submissions made on behalf of the private respondents that it was a government land and it could not be transferred in any manner has no substance in the eyes of law. There is no restrictions in the said order against the alienation in any manner of the lands in question. Thus, the very submissions made on behalf of the private respondents that it was a government land and it could not be transferred in any manner has no substance in the eyes of law. When the lands were already converted into old tenure land, all the restrictions, except those enumerated in the order of conversion of lands from new tenure to old tenure, does not remain attached with the lands. Therefore, the lands could be alienated by the owner thereof by necessary implication. It is also appears from the record that lands were allotted to deceased Kusumba and not as a joint owner. Therefore, the deceased had complete right of alienation of the said lands as per her wish. Since the lands were allotted to the deceased Kusumba, property acquired by her would be her personal property, and therefore, she would be entitled to disposed it of as per her own wishes. 12. Now, in this case, it reveals from the records that deceased has executed a registered Will bequeathing the entire property to the present petitioner. The copy of the Will is produced along with the matter. On perusal of it, it reveals that there is averments made that she has given other property to her other son i.e. respondent herein. Now, it is admitted facts that this is a registered Will, according to Section 135(C) of the Land Revenue Code, it is incumbent on part of the revenue authority to make entry of any registered document made in relation to any land. Therefore, any entry made on the base of the Will would be proper compliance of the provisions of Section 135(C) of the Land Revenue Code. Of course, there is some disputes between the parties regarding the Will. However, facts remains that the Will is yet not declared by any Civil Court as an illegal one or nor it is set aside by any Civil Court. Therefore, until such finding is arrived at by the Civil Court, the entry based upon the Will needs to be allowed to be continued on revenue record. The order of the revenue authorities cancelling the entry made on the basis of the registered Will is not in consonance with the well settled principles of law. Therefore, until such finding is arrived at by the Civil Court, the entry based upon the Will needs to be allowed to be continued on revenue record. The order of the revenue authorities cancelling the entry made on the basis of the registered Will is not in consonance with the well settled principles of law. Moreover, in an RTS proceedings, the revenue authority have no jurisdiction to decide the questions of title to the property. Only the Civil Court has right to decide the title of the property. Therefore, even on this ground the impugned order of the revenue authorities cancelling the entries, which was based on Will needs to be quashed and set aside. 13. Further, so far as the order of the subordinate authorities regarding cancellation of the entry based upon heirship is concerned, it needs to be observed that the lands in question were allotted only to deceased Kusumba and it was her personal property and she had executed Will therefore, if entries made on the basis of the said Will, the name of the person in whose favour property is bequeathed needs to be entered into and no any other person can insist for mutation of his name in the revenue record. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the order of Ld. SSRD allowing the revision of the private respondents regarding restoration of heirship entry is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14. In view of the above discussion, both the petitions needs to be allowed with the observation that entry based upon the Will shall continue in the revenue record subject to the outcome of the proceeding of the Civil Suit and after the decision of the Civil Court in the pending litigation pertaining to the Will, rights of the parties shall governed accordingly. 15. Accordingly, Special Civil Application No.5448 of 2018 is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 08.02.2018 passed by Ld. 15. Accordingly, Special Civil Application No.5448 of 2018 is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 08.02.2018 passed by Ld. SSRD in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/AMD/167 of 2017, order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the District Collector in Revision Application No. 858 of 2015, order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the Deputy Collector in Appeal No. 15 of 2013 as well as order dated 23.10.2012 passed by the Mamlatdar are hereby quashed and set aside and respondent authorities are directed to restore the revenue entry made based upon the Will in the revenue record subject to the outcome of the civil proceedings and after the decision of the Civil Court relating to the property in question, right of the parties shall be governed accordingly. 16. Special Civil Application No. 5449 of 2019 is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 08.12.2018 passed by the Ld. SSRD in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/AMD/172 of 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. Further order in SCA 5449/2018 : Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi appearing for the respondent seeks to stay the operation of this order. However, considering the observation made by this Court, prayer is declined.