JUDGMENT : Nirzar S. Desai, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Trivedi appearing for the petitioner, leaned advocate Mr. Abhimanyu Rathod appearing for the respondent no. 1 and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi appearing for the respondents no. 3 to 7. 2. The respondent no. 2 happens to be the real brother of the petitioner as submitted by learned advocate Mr. Trivedi who has already relinquished his right by way of a partition in favour of the present petitioner and therefore, he is only a formal party. 3. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State. 4. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.03.2016 by the respondent no. 6 i.e. Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) whereby he allowed the Revision Application No. RTS/ST/155 of 2012 and while allowing the revision application preferred by the respondent no. 1 quashed and set aside the order passed by the Collector, Surat dated 07.06.2012 passed in CTS/Revision Application No. 62 of 2011 and the learned Secretary further observed that decision of Civil Court shall be binding to both the parties. 5. The facts giving rise to the present petitioner can be summarized as under:- 5.1. The present petitioner is the owners / occupant who is in possession of the Bungalow No. 17/B situated upon the land bearing City Survey No. 1044/B, Ward: Athva, City: Surat situated in the land bearing Original Revenue Survey No. 27, 28/1, 28/2, 38, 41 and 42 paiki and 43 of Village : Athva, Taluka: City and District : Surat known as Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited. The respondent no. 2 is owner who is in possession of Bungalow No. 17/A situated upon the land bearing City Survey No. 1044/A in the same land. The original land bearing Sub Plot No. 17 was purchased by the family fund of the petitioner herein and the respondent no. 2, who are real brothers and as the petitioner was living in U. K., the respondent no. 2 was shown as the owner of the bungalow and he was the member of Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited. 5.2. In view of the fact that the petitioner was residing abroad at the time when the sale deed was executed. 2, who are real brothers and as the petitioner was living in U. K., the respondent no. 2 was shown as the owner of the bungalow and he was the member of Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited. 5.2. In view of the fact that the petitioner was residing abroad at the time when the sale deed was executed. The sale deed was executed in favour of Kusumben Jashwantray Desai and Jashwantray Balwantray Desai after obtaining necessary permission from the Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society and share certificate were issued in favour of Kusumben Jashwantray Desai as the member of the Adarsh Society and the brother of the petitioner - respondent no. 2 herein Jasvantbhai was shown as nominee of Kusumben. 5.3. Upon the petitioner returned to India and upon the petitioner expressing his desire to partition the land owned jointly by the family, the partition of Sub Plot No. 17 was done. Pursuant to the petitioner having filed the Regular Suit No. 3189 of 1994 wherein on the basis of a consent / compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 vide order passed below Exh. 12 in Regular Suit No. 3181 of 1994, the partition was done and a decree to that effect was drawn on 09.02.1995. 5.4. On the basis of the aforesaid consent decree, the names of the present petitioner and respondent no. 2 came to be entered in the Rule card / Property card in the record of City Survey Office whereby two City Survey No. 1044/A admeasuring 201.31.39 sq. mtrs and City Survey No. 1044 / B admeasuring 204.64.48 sq. mtrs. came under holding of the petitioner. 5.5. The petitioner on 20.12.2000 made an application to Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society to enter his name in the record of the Society and issue share certificate. However, the same was not done by the Society for the reasons stated in the petition but as the petition is preferred against the RTS proceedings, those facts are not necessary and therefore, not stated in the order. 5.6. The fact remains that the Society did not accept the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 and did not recognize the petitioner as the member of the society. 5.6. The fact remains that the Society did not accept the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 and did not recognize the petitioner as the member of the society. After making efforts to get his name entered as member of the society till March, 2007 and even on agreed to the certain terms and condition of the society, as the society did not exceed to any of the request of the petitioner, the petitioner returned to U.K. in the year 2007. 5.7. In the year 2010, as the petitioner’s name was mutated in the Property Register Card/ Rule Card by Entry No. 134 dated 01.12.2000, the Society preferred an appeal being C.T.S. Appeal No. 108 of 2010 under the provisions of Rule 108 (5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 for deletion of Entry No. 134. However, the Deputy Collector, City Prant, Surat vide order dated 13.07.2011 rejected the aforesaid appeal. The Society challenged the aforesaid order dated 13.07.2011 by the Deputy Collector by preferring a CTS/ Revision Application No. 62 of 2011 under the Rule 108 (6) of the Rules before District Collector, Surat where also the appeal preferred by the Society was rejected vide order dated 07.06.2012 by the Collector, Surat. 5.8. Against the aforesaid order dated 07.06.2012, the Society did not preferred any revision application before the Special Secretary but the Chairman of the Society in his individual capacity challenged the order dated 07.06.2012 passed in Revision Application No. 62 of 2011 by the Collector, Surat by preferring a Revision Application being Revision Application No. RTS/ST/155/2012. 5.9. Ultimately the aforesaid revision was allowed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) vide order dated 07.06.2012 by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Collector, Surat dated 07.06.2012 and by observing that the civil suit preferred by the Society, in the meantime being Regular Civil Suit No. 367 of 2012 is pending and therefore, outcome of the aforesaid civil suit would bind the parties. 5.10. Hence, being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision Application No. 155 of 2012, the present petition is preferred. 6. Learned advocate Mr. K. K. Trivedi at the outset placed on record the judgment dated 02.04.2021 below Exh. 5.10. Hence, being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision Application No. 155 of 2012, the present petition is preferred. 6. Learned advocate Mr. K. K. Trivedi at the outset placed on record the judgment dated 02.04.2021 below Exh. 112 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 367 of 2012 preferred by the Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited by 13th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat whereby the suit preferred by the Cooperative Society was dismissed. The copy of the aforesaid decision is taken on record. 6.1. Learned advocate Mr. K. K. Trivedi further placed on record an order dated 28.07.2022 passed by 13th Additional District Judge, Surat in Regular Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2021 below Exh. 5 whereby even the Exh. 5 application preferred by the Society in appeal has also been dismissed. 6.2. Learned advocate Mr. K. K. Trivedi submitted that the society has lost the civil battle and after dismissal of suit even at the stage of appeal also, no relief is granted in favour of the Society. 6.3. Learned advocate Mr. K. K. Trivedi for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the prayer made by the Society in the Civil Suit which is now dismissed and pointed out that by way of Regular Civil Suit No. 367 of 2012, the Society has prayed for quashing and setting the compromise decree passed in favour of the petitioner in Regular Civil Suit No. 3189 of 1994 as well as the changes made in the property card, pursuant to the aforesaid consent decree. 6.4. Learned advocate Mr. K. K. Trivedi for the petitioner submitted that now in view of the fact that the suit whereby the partition was challenged itself is dismissed and therefore, in view of the well settled principle that the revenue entries would follow the title and as the title is acquired in respect of the partition of land i.e. plot no. 17 B owned by the petitioner, the revenue entry is required to be restored in favour of the petitioner. 6.5. He submitted that even in the revenue proceedings while passing the impugned order, the Special Secretary, Revenue Department also had categorically observed that the outcome of the civil suit would bind the parties. 17 B owned by the petitioner, the revenue entry is required to be restored in favour of the petitioner. 6.5. He submitted that even in the revenue proceedings while passing the impugned order, the Special Secretary, Revenue Department also had categorically observed that the outcome of the civil suit would bind the parties. He submitted that when the petitioner is utilizing the property in question for the purpose for which the Society is already constructed and the purpose of utilization has not been changed by the petitioner, it is not open for the Cooperative Society to change the revenue entry which is based on a compromise decree passed by the competent Civil Court. He further submitted that as far as the petitioner’s right to be inducted as membership or Society’s right to refuse the membership is concerned, that is a subject matter of separate litigation before the appropriate forum viz. Board of nominees or any other appropriate proceedings under the Cooperative Society Act but such proceedings would not come in way of the petitioner in getting his name mutated as in the revenue record as per the compromise decree passed by the competent Civil Court. 6.6. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi also submitted that the respondent no. 1 who also challenged the order passed by the Collector, Surat dated 07.06.2012 in Revision Application No. 62 of 2011 has been challenged by the respondent no. 1 in capacity of Chairman of the Society. The said order is not challenged by the Society by passing any resolution to that effect as nothing is on record to show that the Society is authorized respondent no. 1 to challenge the order passed by the Collector, Surat dated 07.06.2012. 6.7. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Trivedi prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision Application No. RTS/ST/155 of 2012. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Abhimanyu Rathod appearing for the respondent no. 1 – Society vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that the Society as per the bye laws of the Society, any partition is not permitted beyond a particular measurement of plot as the size of the plot would be reduced because of the partition between the brothers, the society would not permit sub division of plots and therefore, the society refused to accept the petitioner as member of society. He further submitted that as the consent decree between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 was contrary to the bye laws of the society, the same was challenged by the Society by way of Regular Civil Suit No. 367 of 2012. However, he could not dispute the fact that the aforesaid Civil Suit is dismissed and no relief is granted even in the appeal preferred by the Society. 7.1. However, learned advocate Mr. Rathod relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Ambikanagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited V/s State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2013 (5) GLR 3740 and by relying upon the paragraph nos. 17, 18 and 21 of the aforesaid judgment, learned advocate Mr. Rathod submitted that the petitioner has deviated from the purpose for which the Society has been constituted and therefore, any such changes based upon such deviation was not required to be permitted and therefore, the Special Secretary has rightly cancelled the entry in favour of the petitioner by passing the impugned order. He submitted that if the sub division of plot by way of consent decree results into reducing the area of the plot then the minimum permissible area, the society was justified in objecting such change and therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed by confirming the order passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department as the Special Secretary has considered the issue from right perspective. 7.2. However, learned advocate Mr. Rathod could not dispute the fact that the Special Secretary has also observed that the entries would be governed by final outcome of the Regular Civil Suit. 8. Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that as the dispute is of private nature, this Court may pass appropriate order considering the submissions made by the rival parties. 9. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. 9.1. On perusal of record, I found that the consent decree dated 09.02.1995 has resulted into a consent decree by the competent Civil Court and pursuant to that, the changes were made in the revenue proceedings. 9. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. 9.1. On perusal of record, I found that the consent decree dated 09.02.1995 has resulted into a consent decree by the competent Civil Court and pursuant to that, the changes were made in the revenue proceedings. Today, even the Civil Suit preferred by the Cooperative Society by Regular Civil Suit No. 367 of 2012 has also been dismissed by the competent Civil Court vide its order dated 02.04.2021 and when an appeal being Regular Civil Suit No. 65 of 2021 is preferred by the Cooperative Society, the Exh. 5 application for stay was dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2022 by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Surat which would indicate that when the Society challenged the consent decree in favour of the petitioner which was decree in the year 1995, the Civil Court has dismissed the aforesaid civil suit and in a way endorsed and approved the consent decree passed between the petitioner and respondent no. 2. 9.2. Further the submission of learned advocate Mr. Rathod that the petitioner’s act of sub dividing the plot by way of consent decree is contrary to the provisions of bylaws of the Society cannot be considered in an order whereby the RTS proceedings are challenged for the reason that the petitioner or the respondent no. 2 could have approached the appropriate authority prescribed under the Cooperative Societies Act for their respective grievance in respect of non inclusion as member of the Society or for violation of any of the Cooperative Societies Act. However, as can be seen from the record, none of the parties have resorted to any of the remedies available to them under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. 9.3. It is well settled by now that the revenue entries or any changes made in the revenue entries are only for the fiscal purpose and the revenue entries would follow the title as the petitioner acquired the title by way of consent of decree dated 09.02.1995 in Regular Civil Suit No. 3189 of 1994, the necessary revenue entries were mutated in the revenue records by following the title that was acquired by the petitioner by way of consent decree. Even now as the Regular Civil Suit No. 367 of 2012 is preferred by the society challenging the aforesaid decree has been dismissed and therefore, there is no justification in the submission of learned advocate Mr. Rathod that original entry is required to be restored. 9.4. In view of that, the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision Application No. 155 of 2012 is required to be quashed and set aside for the reason that now even the Civil Suit is also preferred by the Cooperative Society is also dismissed and therefore, in view of settled legal position that the revenue entry would follow the title and as the petitioner is having valid title, the revenue entries are required to be restored. 10. In view of that, necessary entry which has been quashed by way of impugned order is required to be restored. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the impugned order is quashed. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. 12. However, after the judgment was dictated, learned advocate Mr. Rathod pointed out that the petitioner has not acquired any title but he is only in possession of the land in question. 13. In view of above, needless to say that whatever the right the respondent no. 2 was enjoying, the same rights were acquired by the petitioner by way of consent decree and therefore, as the rights that the petitioner is enjoying is clewing for a consent decree in respect of the right originally enjoyed by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner even otherwise would not be in a position to enjoy any other rights than the rights the original the person i.e. respondent no. 2 was enjoying.