ORDER : Nikhil S. Kariel, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shriram Bhargav for learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent No.1 State and learned advocate Mr. Sunil Joshi for the private respondent No.7. It is clarified at this stage that while the original respondent No.7 is represented through his legal heirs, for the sake of brevity, the party will be referred to as respondent No.7. 2. It would appear that while the petition had been preferred in the year 2022 and whereas the order-sheet reflects that the matter has been adjourned for quite a number of times, yet even notice has not been issued. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi for the private respondents is appearing on caveat and whereas reply has been filed on behalf of the caveator. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge an order passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. learned SSRD dated 12.08.2022 passed in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/MRB/38/2021, whereby the learned SSRD has confirmed the order passed by the Collector, which had set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector. 4. It would appear that the private respondents herein had approached the Deputy Collector vide an application, termed as 108(5) Appeal Case No. 54/2020, more particularly contending that the entry No.477 in the revenue record was with regard to a sale deed (conditional) between the grandfather of the present petitioner and the father of the private respondents and whereas while it had been certified, yet the same had not been transcribed in the revenue record and whereas it was requested that the said entry be transcribed in the revenue record. It would appear that vide order dated 20.03.2021, the Deputy Collector, Morbi, had rejected the application, aggrieved by which, the private respondents had challenged the same before the Collector, Morbi, by preferring RRT/Revision/MRB/11/2021 and whereas vide an order dated 11.06.2021, the Collector had allowed the Revision Application and had directed mutation of entry No.2477 in the revenue record and whereas the entry in favour of the family members of the petitioners being entry No.722 had been cancelled qua the land admeasuring 5 A. & 8 G. of Survey No.27 i.e. the land which had been sold by the grandfather of the petitioner to the father of the private respondents, which was subject matter of entry No.477. The Collector had further directed that the said change would be subject to the final outcome of Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 2020 pending before the learned Civil Court at Morbi, preferred by the private respondent No.7 herein. The said order being challenged before the learned SSRD, vide the impugned order dated 12.08.2022, learned SSRD had confirmed order passed by the Collector. Being aggrieved by which order, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Bhargav for the petitioner would contend that the Deputy Collector had not committed any error whatsoever since the Deputy Collector had inter alia come to a conclusion that the issue with regard to the land admeasuring 5A. and 8G. of land of Survey No.27 at village: Ravapara, Ta. Morbi i.e. the land which was sold by the grandfather of the petitioner to the respondent No.7 herein was the subject matter of Civil Suit and therefore, affect of the entry could not be granted. Learned advocate would submit that there are various orders namely order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Morbi, in Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 2020, more particularly under Exhibit 5 directing the defendants therein not to in any manner obstruct the plaintiffs therein i.e. respondent No.7 herein and whereas the defendants therein were directed not to in any manner transact the property in question. It is further submitted that the petitioners had also preferred Regular Civil Suit No.24 of 2021, wherein vide an order under Exhibit 5 dated 26.04.2022, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Morbi had inter alia directed the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to Revenue Survey No.27 Paikee 2. Learned advocate would submit that since the issue with regard to the land bearing Survey No.27 was at large before the learned Civil Court, the Deputy Collector had rightly rejected the application preferred by the respondent No.7 and hence, the Collector as well as learned SSRD ought not to have interfered with the order of Deputy Collector and hence, he would request that the orders passed by the learned SSRD and the Collector be set aside. 6. On the other hand, this petition is vehemently objected to by learned advocate Mr. Joshi, who would submit that as such the petitioners do not have any locus whatsoever to have moved the present writ petition. 6. On the other hand, this petition is vehemently objected to by learned advocate Mr. Joshi, who would submit that as such the petitioners do not have any locus whatsoever to have moved the present writ petition. Learned advocate would submit that the petitioners were not parties either before the Deputy Collector or the Collector and whereas they having preferred Revision Application before the learned SSRD based upon which, the petitioners have tried to make out right to approach this Court. It is submitted by learned advocate that in this regard, that as such, the father of the petitioners had been excluded by the grandfather of the petitioners from all of his properties by a Will of the year 1965 and whereas while the father of the petitioners had preferred Special Civil Suit No.07 of 1970 challenging Will, the said Civil Suit had been dismissed by learned Civil Court vide an order in the year 1971. It is further submitted that even mother of the petitioners had also challenged the said Will by preferring a Regular Civil Suit No.100 of 2007 and whereas the said Suit was dismissed for non- prosecution in the year 2013 and in an appeal preferred for restoration of the above referred Civil Suit, vide an order dated 09.02.2018, the learned Appellate Court had rejected the application for restoration, more particularly on the ground of there being lack of sufficient cause for condoning delay in preferring appeal for restoration. Learned advocate would submit that the father of the petitioners being excluded from any of the properties by the grandfather of the petitioners, while preferring a Will and challenge to the Will, having failed twice, the petitioners did not have any right whatsoever to have approached the learned SSRD or this Court challenging the orders of the Collector and learned SSRD respectively. Learned advocate would submit that as such, in so far as the injunction application preferred by the learned advocate petitioners is concerned, Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 2020 has been preferred by the respondent No.7 and whereas the defendants therein have been injuncted by the learned Civil Court from either obstructing the plaintiffs therein or in any manner transacting the property in question. Furthermore, in so far as Regular Civil Suit No.24 of 2021, it is submitted that while learned Civil Court had granted an order of directing status-quo, the relevant aspect would be that the private respondent No.7 is not joined as defendant in the said Civil Suit and whereas even an application for impleadment preferred by the private respondents had also been rejected. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi would submit that the above aspects being his reply to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioners and whereas it is contended that the issue is not in such a larger canvass as attempted to be submitted. It is submitted by learned advocate that the respondent No.7 had approached the Deputy Collector for giving effect to an entry, which had already been certified and the said aspect was only ministerial act, which was required on part of the revenue authorities without any substantive powers being exercised. Learned advocate would submit that the crucial difference having not been appreciated by the Deputy Collector, the order passed by the Deputy Collector has been rightly interfered with by the Collector and confirmed by the learned SSRD. Making such submissions, learned advocate would request this Court to reject the present petition. 7. Learned AGP Mr. Kanara would submit that the Collector and learned SSRD had not committed any error whatsoever, more particularly learned AGP would draw the attention of this Court to the observations of the learned SSRD, whereby it is noted that the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.7 herein has not been set aside by any competent Court and whereas under such circumstances, the Revenue Authorities were bound give effect to the said sale deed. 8. Having regard to the submissions of the learned advocated for the parties, to this Court, it would appear that the issue, while it is in a very narrow compass, has been unnecessarily enlarged at the behest of both the parties. To this Court, it would appear that the only issue, which was under consideration of the Deputy Collector, more particularly the only issue for which the respondent No.7 had approached the Deputy Collector, was for transcribing entry No.477 in the revenue record. To this Court, it would appear that the only issue, which was under consideration of the Deputy Collector, more particularly the only issue for which the respondent No.7 had approached the Deputy Collector, was for transcribing entry No.477 in the revenue record. The said revenue entry being certified, is an admitted position and the said revenue entry not being questioned by either the petitioners or any of the descendants of grandfather of the petitioners, is also an admitted position. To this Court, it would appear that upon an entry being certified, the most natural consequence of the same would be that the entry would have to be appropriately reflected in the village form and whereas merely a technical or clerical mistake on part of the revenue authorities could not have in any manner prejudiced the right of the respondent No.7. 9. As it is, it clearly appears that the respondent No.7 is the holder of a sale deed by the grandfather of the petitioners with regard to land admeasuring 5A. and 8G., of Survey No.27 situated at village: Ravapar, Ta. Morbi, and whereas as rightly noted by learned SSRD, until the said sale deed remains in existence, effect thereof, was required to be given in the revenue record. Thus, the entry No.477, which was with regard to a sale deed entered into between grandfather of the petitioners and the respondent No.7 dated 03.09.1965, which came to be certified on 08.11.1968 was required to be appropriately reflected in the revenue record. To this Court, it would appear that the above position being clear, nothing further is required to be done rather it is required to observe that no interference in so far as the order of the Collector or the learned SSRD as the case may be, is required. 10. To this Court, it would appear that the above position being clear, nothing further is required to be done rather it is required to observe that no interference in so far as the order of the Collector or the learned SSRD as the case may be, is required. 10. In so far as the substantive issue raised by the learned advocate for the petitioners, to this Court, it would appear that the entire issue with regard to the land, which was sold by the grandfather of the petitioners to the respondent No.7 herein is the subject matter of various Civil Suits and while interim orders have been granted in the Civil Suits preferred by the respective parties, to this Court, it would appear that if there is any violation of the orders by any of the parties, then it would for the aggrieved party to appropriately approach the learned Civil Court for appropriate redressal of their grievance and whereas no further clarification in this regard, is required. 11. Having regard to the observations above, more particularly since it clearly appears to this Court that what was sought for by the petitioners by approaching the Deputy Collector was only implementation of a ministerial act, which was to be done by the revenue authorities themselves and since it clearly appears that the entry No.477 referred to hereinabove has not been questioned by the petitioners or the descendants of his grandfather and since it appears that the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.7 herein holds the field as on the date, therefore, to this Court, the order passed by the Collector confirmed by the learned SSRD requires no interference, the petition is disposed of as rejected.