JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Senior advocate Mr. M.S. Shah with learned advocate Mr. A. R. Kadri appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayneel Parikh appearing for the respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4, learned advocate Mr. Niyant R. Bhimani appearing for the respondents No.5, 6, 7, 8. Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondent No.9. 2. Though there are two separate petitions preferred by the same petitioner, learned senior advocate Mr. M. S. Shah submitted that by way of a Will, different parcels of land were given to the petitioner, for which different entries were mutated and therefore, the revenue proceedings commenced separately in respect of two different entries and therefore, there are two petitions and hence, except for the two different revenue entries as the facts are by and large the same both the matters may be taken up together. Learned advocate Mr. Niyant Bhimani did not dispute the aforesaid submissions and hence, both the matters were taken up together and now being decided today. 3. Since the matter is being heard finally with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, issue RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayneel Parikh waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents No.1, 2, 3, 4 and learned advocate Mr. Niyant R. Bhimani waives service of rule on behalf of respondents No.5, 6, 7, 8. According to learned senior advocate Mr. M. S. Shah, respondent No.9 has never challenged the Will executed in favour of the petitioner and nor she objected to the concerned mutation entry which is a subject matter of dispute between the parties and also considering the fact that despite the notice was served upon respondent No.9, she had not chosen to appear before this Court, the matter is heard in absence of respondent No.9. 4. Brief facts of the petition as stated by learned senior advocate Mr. M. S. Shah assisted by learned advocate Mr. Kadri are stated as under :- 5. For the convenience as the dispute is in respect of mutation entry mutated on the basis of Will, the fact of Special Civil Application No.965 of of 2022 is stated. 4. Brief facts of the petition as stated by learned senior advocate Mr. M. S. Shah assisted by learned advocate Mr. Kadri are stated as under :- 5. For the convenience as the dispute is in respect of mutation entry mutated on the basis of Will, the fact of Special Civil Application No.965 of of 2022 is stated. The only difference in respect of fact in both the petition is that in Special Civil Application No.1283 of 2022 before Entry No.1664 there was entry being Entry No.1663 mutated on the basis of succession whereas in Special Civil Application No.965 of 2022 straightway Entry No.1896 was mutated on the basis of Will. 6. With the aforesaid difference between the facts of the two petitions, the facts of Special Civil Application No.965 of 2022 are as under :- 6.1 The issue pertains to a land bearing Old Survey No.94/2 (New Block/Survey No.362), Old Survey No.94/4 (New Block/Survey No.364), Old Survey No.95/1/E (New Survey No.367) known as Khandhiwadu Khet situated at Village Sarnej, Taluka - Vaghodiya, District - Vadodara, the aforesaid land was purchased by father of the petitioner namely Jayantilal Gandhi and two uncle of the petitioner namely Ochavlal Gandhi and Narendrabhai Gandhi, by way of a registered sale deeds. In respect of land bearing Survey No.94/2 and 95/1/E, mutation Entry No.766 was mutated whereas for a land bearing Survey No.94/4, revenue Entry No.767 was mutated and both the entries were certified on different dates in the year 1977. 6.2 The petitioner's uncle namely Narendrakumar Chaganlal Gandhi died on 17.9.1997 and said Narendrakumar Gandhi married twice but both the wives died in the year 1991 and 1997 respectively. Late Narendrakumar Chaganlal Gandhi was not survived by any other legal heirs. 6.3 Another uncle of the petitioner namely Ochavlal Chaganlal Gandhi was also died on 6.4.1979, leaving behind the only legal heir namely his wife Chandanben Ochavbhai Gandhi and the said Chandanben inherited his entire share from the aforesaid property in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner became the owner of the share of the land of Ochavlal Gandhi by way of a Will. 6.4 Petitioner's father Jayantilal Gandhi executed a Will affirmed before the Executive Magistrate qua his share in the property in favour of the present petitioner in presence of the witnesses and the said Will was executed on 9.4.1998 and the father of the petitioner Jayantilal Gandhi passed away on 15.12.2002. 6.5 Chandanben Ochavlal Gandhi also executed a Registered Will before the Sub-Registrar on 11.10.2006 and she expired on 26.7.2012. 6.6 The aforesaid facts would indicate that though three brothers namely Jayantilal, Ochavlal and Narendrakumar Gandhi purchased the land in question jointly, on account of the fact that Chandanben and Jayantilal Gandhi, gave away their share of the land, by way of Registered Will in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner became owner of the land in question. 6.7 At this stage, it is clarified by learned senior advocate Mr. M. S. Shah that as one of the joint owner of the property Narendrakumar died in the year 1997 and he was not having any issue, his share had gone to his two brothers / legal heirs of brother and therefore, the entire property remained with Jayantilal and Chandanben, who interned entrusted their properties in favour of the petitioner by way of two registered Wills and therefore, upon death of Chandanben in the year 2012, the petitioner became sole owner of the property in question. 6.8 Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application on 12.2.2016 for mutating his name in the revenue record and for deletion of name of Narendrakumar Gandhi from the revenue record, the same was done and Entry No.1896 was mutated in the revenue record on 12.2.2016 and the same was certified on 3.5.2016 by respondent No.4. 6.9 In respect of other survey number of land Entry No.1664 was mutated in favour of the petitioner and therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order whereby Entry No.1896 and Entry No.1664 were mutated in favour of the petitioner, two separate proceedings challenging those entries were preferred by the respondents No.4 to 8 before the Revenue Authorities. In respect of Entry No.1896, the respondents No.5 to 8 preferred RTS/Dispute/348/2016 before the Deputy Collector, Dabhoi, District - Vadodara and respondent No.3 - Deputy Collector, Dabhoi, District - Vadodara allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents No.5 to 8 vide order dated 7.8.2018 and quashed the Entry No.1896. In respect of Entry No.1896, the respondents No.5 to 8 preferred RTS/Dispute/348/2016 before the Deputy Collector, Dabhoi, District - Vadodara and respondent No.3 - Deputy Collector, Dabhoi, District - Vadodara allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents No.5 to 8 vide order dated 7.8.2018 and quashed the Entry No.1896. 6.10 The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by preferring a revision before the respondent No.2 - Collector, Vadodara by way of RTS/RA/343/2018 and the Collector Vadodara vide his order dated 5.9.2019 confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Vadodara and rejected the revision application of the petitioner. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Dabhoi and Collector, Vadodara by way of a revision application before the Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department by way of revision application being MVV/HKP/VAD/174/2019 and vide order dated 1.12.2021, the Special Secretary (Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the respondents No.2 and 3 by rejecting the revision application of the petitioner. However as in the meantime, Will itself was challenged by the respondents No.5 to 8 by way of Regular Civil Suit No.399/2018 which was pending at the relevant point of time before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge at Vadodara. The Special Secretary Vadodara observed that certification of entry shall be subject to final outcome of Regular Civil Suit No.399/2018. 7.1 In respect of another revenue entry that is Entry No.1664, the said entry was challenged by the respondents no.5 to 8 before the Deputy Collector wherein they succeeded and Entry No. 1664 was quashed and against which the petitioner preferred appeal and revision before the Collector, Vadodara and Special Secretary (Appeals) respectively, where the petitioner failed and similar observations were made by the Special Secretary and that is how the petitioner has preferred two petitions and challenged two different orders dated 1.12.2021 passed in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/VAD/174/2019 and Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/VAD/43/2020. 8. With the aforesaid factual background, learned senior advocate Mr. 8. With the aforesaid factual background, learned senior advocate Mr. M.S. Shah submitted that in the meantime, the challenge to the Will itself made by respondents No.5 to 8 in Regular Civil Suit No.399 of 2018 was decided by the learned 18th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara vide order dated 30.9.2023 whereby the learned judge was pleased to reject the suit preferred by the respondents No.5 to 8 and though against which an appeal is preferred by respondent Nos.5 to 8, no stay is granted in the aforesaid appeal. Learned senior advocate Mr. Shah drew attention of this Court from the aforesaid judgment, copy of which is placed on record, from the issues framed in the aforesaid suit and pointed out that the aforesaid suit was preferred and two separate Wills in favour of the petitioner executed by his father Jayantilal Chaganlal Gandhi dated 6.4.1998 as well as his paternal aunty Chandanlal Ochavlal Gandhi dated 6.10.2006 were challenged on the ground that those Wills were bogus, fraudulent and concocted one. However, the aforesaid contention was not believed by the Trial Court and therefore, the suit was dismissed. 9. Learned senior advocate therefore submitted that in view of dismissal of suit and thereby, essentially to the challenge to the Will, even the revenue Entries No.1664 and 1896 which are also challenged on the ground that the Will is questionable as no probate is obtained in respect of the aforesaid Will and therefore, the entry certified on the basis of aforesaid Will is required to be quashed, that finding is required to be quashed and original Entry No.1664 and 1896 are required to be restored subject to final outcome of appeal against the judgment dated 30.9.2023 in Regular Civil Suit No.399/2018 passed by the learned 18th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara. 10. The aforesaid submission though was vehemently opposed by learned advocate Mr. Niyant Bhimani, learned advocate Mr. Bhimani also could not dispute the fact that the respondents No.5 to 8 have lost in civil proceedings as Regular Civil Suit No.399/2018 is dismissed. He also could not dispute the fact that while rejecting the revision application preferred by the petitioner Special Secretary (Appeal) Revenue Department specifically observed that the final outcome of pending Regular Civil Suit No.399/2018 shall be binding to the parties. 11. He also could not dispute the fact that while rejecting the revision application preferred by the petitioner Special Secretary (Appeal) Revenue Department specifically observed that the final outcome of pending Regular Civil Suit No.399/2018 shall be binding to the parties. 11. In view of above he could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect and submitted that though this Court may pass appropriate order considering the merit of the matter, this Court may observed that any entry which may be restored shall be subject to final outcome of pending appeal preferred by the respondents No.5 to 8. 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayneel Parikh appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 submitted that the dispute being entirely a private dispute, Government is only a formal party and therefore, Court may pass appropriate order. 13. In view of above submission as well as considering the material available on record, I have found that the dispute in respect of Entry No.1664 and Entry No.1896 are raised by respondents No.5 to 8 who happens to be the sisters of the present petitioner. Though respondents No.5 to 8 have questioned the Will and have challenged the Will by way of Regular Civil Suit No.399/2018, the aforesaid suit is decided against them as the suit is rejected. Further, it is well settled that once the civil rights are crystallized, the same should be given effect to in the revenue record. In the instant case, so long as the civil suit was pending even the revenue authorities also while quashing entry No.1664 and 1896 had observed and more particularly, Special Secretary (Appeals) had observed that the decision in Regular Civil Suit No.399/2018 would bind the parties. Now since the Regular Civil Suit No.399/2018 is decided against the respondents No.5 to 8, original Entry No.1664 and 1896 are required to be restored by quashing and setting aside the orders dated 1.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 in MVV/HKP/VAD/174/2019 and order dated 5.9.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 in RTS/RA/343/2018, as well as order dated 7.8.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 in RTS/Dispute/348/2018 in Special Civil Application No.965 of 2022 and the order dated 1.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 in MVV/HKP/VAD/43/2020 and order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 in RTS/RA/211/2019 as well as order dated 18.3.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 in RTS/Appeal/64/2018 in Special Civil Application No.1283 of 2022. 14. 14. Resultantly, the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside with a clarification that the original Entry No.1664 and Entry No. 1896 are restored with a clarification that the same would be subject to final outcome of appeal preferred against Regular Civil Suit No.399/2018 which is decided on 30.9.2023 by the respondent No.5 to 8. 15. With the aforesaid observation, both the petitions succeeds and are accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.