JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J. 1. There is no objection to the delay in filing of the appeal from any of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. The delay has been explained to the satisfaction of this Court. The delay condonation application has been allowed. Delay of 36 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The appeal be treated as a registered appeal. Office is directed to allot regular number to the appeal. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anshin Desai assisted by Mr. Jay M. Thakkar for applicant No. 1, Mr. Jay R. Shah, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6, Mr. Dilip Rana, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 4.1 to 4.7, Mr. Jinesh Kapadia, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 7.1 to 7.4 and perused the record. 3. The appellant herein is the original petitioner, who has filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 10.07.2014 passed by the Revenue authorities namely SSRD (Secretary, Revenue Department) in RTS Appeal No. 119 of 2012. 4. The writ petition was filed originally against the heirs and legal representatives of one Shivabhai Merubhai impleaded as Respondent Nos. 4.1 to 4.7 before the Writ Court. Respondent No. 5, in the writ petition, is projected as the vendor of the registered sale deed dated 02.07.2011 executed in favour of the petitioner, entry with respect to which was made in the revenue record on 14.03.2012 as Entry No. 18179 and was certified on 14.08.2012. 5. The dispute is with respect to three land parcels having Survey Nos. 313, 316 and 337. The claim of the original petitioner is that he had purchased the lands in question namely three parcels of noted hereinabove vide registered sale deed dated 02.07.2022. The respondent No. 5, in turn, had purchased the lands in question from two persons namely Rajnikant M. Patel and Chunibhai M. Amin, in whose favour mortgage of three plots including other plots was created by the original owner namely Shivabhai Merubhai, whose heirs and legal representatives are impleaded in the writ petition as Respondent Nos. 4.1 to 4.7 and who has been termed as Respondent No. 4 before the learned Single Judge. 6. 4.1 to 4.7 and who has been termed as Respondent No. 4 before the learned Single Judge. 6. The claim of the original petitioner is that the revenue entry in favour of Respondent No. 5 namely Rashmikant C. Patel on the basis of the Sale deed executed by Rajnikant Patel and Chunibhai Patel was made on 03.10.2008. 7. Respondent No. 7 (through 7.1 to 7.8 i.e. heirs and legal representatives of Rameshbhai Fulabhai Parmar and Respondent No. 8 namely Tarunbhai Babubhai Keshari are claiming their right in the property on the basis of sale deed dated 02.02.2010 of one plot namely Survey No. 337, executed by original Respondent No. 4 namely the original owner of the plots in question. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the revenue entry in the name of the appellants/original petitioner of the year 2012 could not be cancelled in the proceedings drawn by the Collector vide order dated 05.04.2013, when there was no challenge to the registered sale deed executed by the Respondent no. 5 dated 02.07.2011 in favour of the petitioner herein. Further submission is that, in any case, the learned Single Judge has erred in observing that Respondent Nos. 7.1 to 7.4 and Respondent No. 6 as well as Respondent No. 8 are having right of hearing in the proceedings pertaining to cancellation of mutation entry in the name of the petitioner made on 14.03.2012 and certified on 14.08.2012. It is contended that at no stage of the proceedings, between the other respondents who were party to the writ petition the Respondent Nos. 7.1 to 7.4 and Respondent No. 8 were party. 9. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the original petitioner/ appellant herein is that the sale deed dated 02.02.2010, the basis of claim of Respondent No. 7 and Respondent No. 8 allegedly executed by original owner namely Shivabhai Merubhai (Respondent No. 4), has never seen the light of the day, inasmuch as, there was no mutation entry with respect to the said sale deed prior to the entry made in the name of the petitioner by virtue of the sale deed dated 02.07.2011. 10. It is further submitted that in a suit proceedings initiated by the Respondent Nos. 10. It is further submitted that in a suit proceedings initiated by the Respondent Nos. 4.1 to 4.7 being Special Civil Suit No. 212 of 2012, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the competent Civil Court in the First Appeal No. 130 of 2018. A compromise has been arrived between the parties namely heirs of Respondent No. 4 (4.1 to 4.7) and the petitioner herein and the first appeal has been disposed of vide judgment and order dated 22.02.2018 in terms of the compromise. The submission, thus, is that the Respondent Nos. 7.1 to 7.4 and Respondent No. 8, who are claiming right through Respondent No. 4 on the basis of sale deed dated 02.02.2010, cannot raise any objection to the mutation entries made in the name of the petitioner, moreso after the compromise arrived between the heirs of the original owner namely Shivabhai Merubhai and the petitioner herein. 11. In rebuttal, Mr. Jinesh Kapadia, learned advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 7.1 to 7.4 would submit that the mutation entry dated 03.10.2008 made in the name of Respondent No. 5 had been cancelled vide order dated 05.04.2013 in the proceedings brought forth by the heirs of the original owner namely Respondent No. 4 (Respondent Nos. 4.1 to 4.7 herein). The basis of cancellation of the said entry, as recorded by the Revenue authorities in the order passed on 05.04.2013, is that there exists a reconveyance deed dated 11.06.1996, whereby the mortgage created in favour of two persons namely Rajnikant M. Patel and Chunibhai M. Amin had been redeemed. 12. The contention, thus, is that the vendors of the three sale deeds executed in favour of Respondent No. 5 dated 03.08.2000 and 09.06.2003 had left with no right, title or interest in the property after the redemption of mortgage by way of registered reconveyance deed dated 11.06.1996 and thereafter, mutation entry in the name of Shivabhai Merubhai was entered and certified entry was made in the year 1996. 13. The submission is that after redemption of the mortgage created by Respondent No. 4 Shivabhai Merubhai in favour of two persons, who are vendors of the sale deed executed in favour of Respondent No. 5, sale deed executed in Respondent No. 5 has become a nullity. The rights claimed by the petitioner herein through Respondent No. 5, therefore, automatically came to an end. 14. The rights claimed by the petitioner herein through Respondent No. 5, therefore, automatically came to an end. 14. Respondent No. 6 represented by Mr. Jay R. Shah, claims to be another set of heir of original Respondent No. 4 namely Shivabhai Merubhai and thus, claims right in the property in question on the premise that he is grandson of the first wife of Shivabhai Merubhai. 15. From these facts brought brought on record, placed before us, it is evident that there are three sets of registered sale deeds; first one in favour of Respondent No. 5 dated 03.08.2000 and 09.06.2003 with respect to three parcels of land comprising of Survey No. 313, 316 and 337; the second registered sale deed is dated 02.02.2010, which was executed by original Respondent No. 4 Shivabhai Merubhai on the premise of the reconveyance deed of the year 1996; the third set of registered sale deed is dated 02.07.2011 executed by Respondent No. 5 in favour of the original petitioner/appellant herein. 16. The crux of the controversy is the reconveyance deed dated 11.03.1996, whereby the mortgage created in favour of two persons - vendors of the sale deeds dated 03.08.2000 and 09.06.2003 in favour of Respondent No. 5, has been allegedly redeemed by way of the reconveyance. It is an admitted fact on record that the mutation entry No. 12302, a certified entry stated to have been made in the revenue records on the basis of reconveyance deed dated 11.06.1996 has not been reflected in the revenue records namely Village Form No. 07/12. The question, thus, is that when reconveyance deed dated 11.06.1996 had not seen the light of the day, what right or power will be with the revenue authorities to delete the entry made in the mutation proceedings, which had taken place in the year 2012 in favour of the appellant herein. 17. Having noted the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that the crux of the dispute, which lies in the reconveyance deed dated 11.06.1996 executed in favour of Respondent No. 4, can only be adjudicated before the Civil Court, moreso in view of the fact that the civil suit namely Special Civil Suit No. 212 of 2012 instituted by the heirs of Respondent No. 4 has been decided in terms of the compromise arrived between the heirs of Respondent No. 4 and the petitioner herein. 18. 18. In this web of sale deeds, it would not be possible for the revenue authorities to adjudicate on the correctness or veracity of the reconveyance deed dated 11.06.1996; the sale deeds dated 03.08.2000 and 09.06.2003 executed in favour of Respondent No. 5; the registered sale deed dated 02.02.2010 executed in favour of Respondent Nos. 7 and 8; and lastly the sale deed dated 02.07.2011 executed in favour of the petitioner herein. All the parties herein are claiming their rights through the original owner namely Shivabhai Merubhai, the predecessor-in-interest to the Respondent Nos. 4.1 to 4.7 herein. We may note that there are two sale deeds dated 03.08.2000 in favour of the Respondent No. 5, one of which, with respect to Survey no. 316 was executed by the power of attorney of Shivabhai Merubhai Parmar (original owner). 19. In any case, looking to the complexity of the dispute raised before us, we find that Revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of right, title or interest of the parties in the lands in question. 20. In these facts and circumstances, we find that the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law in relegating the matter to the revenue authorities for consideration of the objection raised by Respondent Nos. 7.1 to 7.4 and Respondent No. 8 as well as Respondent No. 6, impleaded before the Writ Court. 21. For the above discussions, the impugned orders dated 01.09.2013 passed in RTS Appeal No. 119 of 2013 and the order dated 10.07.2014 passed by the SSRD (Secretary, Revenue Department) are also liable to be set aside. 22. While confirming the order dated 28.10.2013 in RTS/RA/131/13, passed by the Collector, Anand, we only provide that the Revenue Entry No. 18179 dated 14.03.2012 certified on 14.08.2012 in favour of the petitioners herein, based on the sale deed dated 02.07.2011, shall be subject to any proceedings initiated by the Respondent Nos. 7.1 to 7.4, Respondent Nos. 6 and 8 before the Civil Court. 23. Before parting, we may further note that the Respondent No. 7 (7.1 to 7.4) and Respondent No. 8 are claiming the right only on one the piece of land i.e. Survey No. 337 and there is no dispute with regard to other two plots No. 313 and 316, insofar as, Respondent No. 7 (7.1 to 7.7) and Respondent No. 8 before us. Insofar as Respondent No. 6 is concerned, who has claimed the right as one of the heirs and legal representatives of the original owner namely Shivabhai Merubhai, he would be required to file a separate civil suit to agitate his grievances. 24. In any case, the disputed questions of fact pertaining to right, title or interest of the rival parties can only be decided by the Civil Court. While saying so, we set aside the judgment and order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge with the above observation. The Letters Patent Appeal and the writ petition, both are, accordingly, allowed. 25. It is clarified that the observation made hereinabove will not come in the way of the parties if any proceeding is initiated before the Civil Court, inasmuch, the concerned Court shall have to decide the issues on their merit before it, without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 26. In view of the disposal of the present appeal, the connected Civil Application also stands disposed of.