A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 20th November 1984 in Revision Application No. TEN. B. S. 89 of 1984 as affirmed in review by its decision rendered on 10 December 1985 in Review Application No. TEN. C. S. 2 of 1985 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By its impugned decision the Tribunal upset the order passed by the Deputy Collector at Navsari (the First Authority for convenience) on 25 September 1980 in granting permission to respondent No. 2 herein to sell two parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 416 and 418n admeasuring O acre 15 gunthas and O acre 13 gunthas-situated in village Chhapra Taluka Navsari District Valsad (the disputed lands for convenience) inter alia to the deceased xt predecessor-in-title of the petitioner herein under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (the Act for brief ). ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The disputed lands were shown to be in occupation of respondent No. 2 herein in the revenue records. She was unable to cultivate them personally on account of her old age. She therefore applied under Section 43 of the Act for permission to sell them to the predecessor-in-title of the present petitioner so far Survey No. 416 was concerned and to Hirabhai Lallubhai so far as Survey No. 418/2 was concerned. After holding the necessary inquiry by his order passed on 25th September 1980 the First Authority granted the necessary permission to respondent No. 2 herein. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that the order at Annexure-A to this petition came to the notice of respondent No. 1 herein and it hereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal by means of its Revision Application No. TEN. B. S. 89 of 1984. It is the petitioners case that the revisional application was filed by respondent No. 2 herein before the Tribunal on 4th July 1984 for challenging the order at Annexure-A to this petition passed on 25 September 1980. By its decision rendered on 20th November 1984 in the aforesaid revisional application the Tribunal accepted it and set aside the order at Annexure-A to this petition. By its decision rendered on 20th November 1984 in the aforesaid revisional application the Tribunal accepted it and set aside the order at Annexure-A to this petition. A copy of its decision is at Annexure-B to this petition. The petitioners attempt to seek its review by means of Review Application No. TEN. C. S. 2 of 1985 also failed. By its decision rendered on 10th December 1985 in the aforesaid review application. the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon moved this Court by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned decision at Annexure- B to this petition as affirmed in review by the decision at Annexure-C to this petition. ( 3 ) SECTION 79 of the Act prescribes the period of limitation of 60 days inter alia for a revisional application before the Tribunal against an order of the Collector from its date. While passing the order at Annexure-A to this petition the First Authority admittedly exercised the powers of the concerned Collector under Section 43 of the Act. For challenging that order the necessary revisional application was required to be filed within 60 days from its date. Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 is inter alia made applicable under Sec. 79 of the Act to a revisional application before the Tribunal under Section 76 thereof. That would empower the Tribunal to condone the delay in preferring a revisional application before it under Section 76 of the Act. It is a settled principle of law that an application for condonation of delay can also be made orally. However unless the Tribunal condones the delay in preferring the revisional application before it under Section 76 of the Act it has no jurisdiction to entertain such revisional application if preferred beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 79 thereof. ( 4 ) IT is difficult to accept the submission urged before me by Shri Rathod for the contesting respondents to the effect that the Tribunal can be said to have impliedly condoned the delay in preferring the revisional application when it entertained it on merits. The reason therefor is quite simple. Section 79 of the Act prescribes the period of limitation to be of 60 days for challenging inter alia an order of a Collector. The reason therefor is quite simple. Section 79 of the Act prescribes the period of limitation to be of 60 days for challenging inter alia an order of a Collector. It is a mandatory provision. It will have to be strictly adhered to. In that view of the matter in order to entertain a revisional application under section 76 of the Act it has to be filed within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 79 of the Act. If it is filed beyond. the prescribed period of limitation the condition for its entertainment is not satisfied. As pointed out hereinabove the Tribunal does possess power to condone the delay in preferring such revisional application. However unless such delay is condoned the Tribunal does not have power to entertain a revisional application preferred beyond the prescribed period of limitation. In that view of the matter there is no implied condonation of delay simply on the ground that the revisional application has been entertained on merits. ( 5 ) IT is again difficult to accept the submission urged before me by Shri Rathod for the contesting respondents to the effect that the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the revisional application in question or merits since the bar of limitation was not pressed into service by and on behalf of the petitioner at the time of its hearing and even at the stage of the review of the decision at Annexure-B to this petition. The reason therefor is again quite simple The condition precedent for exercise of its revisional powers by the Tribunal was not satisfied unless the delay in preferring the revisional application in question was concerned. Besides Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1963 ordains the Court to dismiss a matter if it is hit by the Law of Limitation ? irrespective of the act whether or not the bar of limitation is pressed into service. By virtue of Section 29 (2) thereof the relevant provisions contained in the Limitation Act 1963 would be applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal as its applicability is not excluded by or under the Act. Even if it is assumed that the relevant provisions contained in the Limitation Act 1963 are made inapplicable by the necessary implications the principle analogous to Section 3 thereof cannot be overlooked by the Tribunal. Even if it is assumed that the relevant provisions contained in the Limitation Act 1963 are made inapplicable by the necessary implications the principle analogous to Section 3 thereof cannot be overlooked by the Tribunal. Absence of Contention based on the bar of limitation does not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to entertain a revisional application on merits if it is preferred beyond the prescribed period of limitation and if the delay in preferring it is not condoned. ( 6 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion I am of the opinion that the impugned decision at Annexure-B to this petition as affirmed in review by the decision at Annexure-C to this petition cannot be sustained in law. The matter will have to be remanded to the Tribunal for restoring the revisional application in question to file and to consider the question of limitation prescribed under Section 79 of the Act first before deciding it on merits if necessary It is true that an application for condonation of delay can orally be made in view of the ruling of this Court in the case of Markland Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1988 (1) Gujarat Law Herald at P. 167. However since respondent No. 1 herein (the State of Gujarat) preferred the revisional application before the Tribunal its oral application may not serve the purpose. It would however be open to it to make an application for condonation of the delay in preferring the revisional application in question. ( 7 ) IN the result this petition is accepted. the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad on 20th November 1984 in Revision Application No TEN. B. S. 89 of 1984 at Annexure-B to this petition as affirmed in review by its decision rendered on 10th December 1985 in Review Application No. TEN. C. S. 2 of 1985 at Annexure-C to this petition is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad for restoration of Revision Application No TEN. B. S 89 of 1984 to file and for deciding it afresh according to law in the light of this judgment of mine. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. .