JUDGMENT:- By this petition, the petitioners impugn order rendered by learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in revision petition No.13/B/89-Beed dated 21-09-1990 whereby and whereunder the revision petition was allowed and the order of the Appellate Tribunal was set aside. At the same time, order rendered by the Additional Tahsildar in File No. 83/TNC/Camp/6 on 23-12-1987 was confirmed. The legal impact of the impugned order is that certificate issued under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, "the HT &AL Act") came to be cancelled. 2. The petitioners are legal representatives of deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav. Lands Survey No.202-AA, admeasuring 9 acres, 20 gunthas, Survey No.189, admeasuring 1 acre, 37 gunthas, situated at village Ghatnandur (District Beed) were owned by one Naimuddin Siddiqui. Yeshwanta Jadhav was declared as a protected tenant of the said lands. Certificate of statutory ownership was issued in his favour on 01-02-1959. The landlord was alive at the relevant time. The price fixed by the Tenancy Tribunal was deposited by Yeshwanta and, therefore, certificate under section 38(6) of the HT&AL Act was issued in his favour on 23-04-1970. 3. The original land owner i.e. Nadimuddin died in 1962 i.e. before issuance of the certificate under section 38(6) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Acquisition Act, 1950 (for short, "the HT&AL Act") in favour of said Yeshwanta. His two (2) sons challenged the declaration of statutory ownership in favour of said Yeshwanta by filing an appeal before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms). The learned Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) held that the appeal was barred by limitation and as such, it was dismissed by order dated 19-04-1971. Feeling aggrieved, they carried the matter to the revisional Court by filing revision application No.108/B/71-Beed. The learned designated Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the revision application, by order dated 05-11-1971. 4. The widow of deceased Nadimuddin filed an application before the Additional Tahsildar, Ambajogai, challenging the issuance of certificate under section 38(6) and declaration under section 38-E of the HT&AL Act in favour of said Yeshwanta Jadhav. Her main contention was that said Yeshwanta Jadhav was never the tenant in respect of the land bearing Survey No.202-AA, admeasuring 9 acres, 20 gunthas, owned by deceased Nadimuddin. She alleged that the said land was wrongly shown to be holding of said Yeshwanta Jadhav. Her main contention was that said Yeshwanta Jadhav was never the tenant in respect of the land bearing Survey No.202-AA, admeasuring 9 acres, 20 gunthas, owned by deceased Nadimuddin. She alleged that the said land was wrongly shown to be holding of said Yeshwanta Jadhav. Her contention was that Yeshwanta Jadhav could not be regarded as protected tenant of the said land and the entry in the final register of the protected tenants was only in respect of another land i.e. Survey No.189, but there was no declaration as such in respect of land Survey No.202-AA in favour of said Yeshwanta Jadhav. The chief bone of contention was that there was error while issuing the certificate under section 38(6) and it was issued inclusive of land Survey No.202-AA notwithstanding the fact that the said land was not declared to Yeshwanta Jadhav under provisions of section 34 of the HT&AL Act. The application was dismissed by the learned Additional Tahsildar, Ambajogai. The Deputy Collector (L.R.), however, allowed the appeal preferred by deceased respondent Afsar Begum i.e. widow of the deceased landlord - Nadimuddin. The learned Deputy Collector (L.R.) by order dated 20-01-1983 directed that the Additional Tahsildar shall inquire about grievances of deceased Afsar Begum and to decide whether said Yeshwanta Jadhav was a protected tenant and was entitled to be declared as such under section 37-A of the HT&AL Act. The enquiry revealed that name of Yeshwanta Jadhav was not shown in the register of tenants. He was never shown to be the protected tenant while preparing the register of protected tenants. It was found by the learned Additional Tahsildar that there was mistake caused while issuing the certificate under section 38(6) and though Yeshwanta Jadhav was not shown as a protected tenant in the final P.T. register, yet, his name was introduced as statutory owner while issuing the said certificate. Therefore, by order dated 23-12-1987, the Additional Tahsildar held that the certificate was invalid. He came to the conclusion that error caused in the issuance of certificate could be rectified. Hence, he directed deletion of the entry pertaining to Survey No.202-AA from the relevant certificate issued under section 38(6) of the HT&AL Act. 5. The petitioners preferred appeal which was allowed by the learned Deputy Collector (L.R.), Beed by judgment dated 30th December, 1988. He came to the conclusion that error caused in the issuance of certificate could be rectified. Hence, he directed deletion of the entry pertaining to Survey No.202-AA from the relevant certificate issued under section 38(6) of the HT&AL Act. 5. The petitioners preferred appeal which was allowed by the learned Deputy Collector (L.R.), Beed by judgment dated 30th December, 1988. The learned Deputy Collector held that the civil Court had dismissed the suit filed by the legal heirs of the deceased land owner i.e. Nadimuddin for declaration that the statutory ownership granted in favour of Yeshwanta Jadhav was illegal. The learned Deputy Collector further held that though deceased Nadimuddin had knowledge about the judgment rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, yet, he had not preferred any application for cancellation of the declaration during his lifetime. The learned Deputy Collector held that the application for rectification of the declaration was untenable and as such, the judgment and order rendered by the Additional Tahsildar was unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. Feeling aggrieved, deceased respondent Afsar Begum preferred revision application (Revision No.13/B/89 Beed). Her revision application was allowed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 21-09-1990. The petitioner’s are challenging the said judgment rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 6. Mr. Darak would submit that finality is attached to the declaration made under section 38-E and the same could not be challenged by deceased respondent Afsar Begum after lapse of a considerable period. He would submit that the earlier round of litigation was initiated by the sons of deceased Nadimuddin after attaining majority and when they lost the legal battle, the mother was instigated to re-commence the same objection to the declaration. He would submit that the learned Additional Tahsildar and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal committed patent error while invalidating the certificate issued under section 38(6) after gap of many years and particularly when deceased Nadimuddin had not challenged the said certificate during his lifetime. Mr. Darak contended that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal exceeded revisional jurisdiction while allowing the revision application when the view taken by the learned Deputy Collector (L.R.) could be regarded as legal and proper. He urged, therefore, to allow the petition and set aside the impugned judgment. Per contra, Mrs. Mr. Darak contended that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal exceeded revisional jurisdiction while allowing the revision application when the view taken by the learned Deputy Collector (L.R.) could be regarded as legal and proper. He urged, therefore, to allow the petition and set aside the impugned judgment. Per contra, Mrs. Kulkarni submitted that there was basic mistake in issuance of the certificate when land Survey No.202-AA was incorporated therein without there being declaration in favour of Yeshwanta Jadhav regarding his tenancy. She submits that the mistake could be rectified at any time because the certificate could not have been issued without there being declaration of status of Yeshwanta Jadhav as a protected tenant. She contended that the challenge is not to the certificate as such, but the challenge is regarding the foundation to the certificate. In other words, her main contention is that without initial declaration of tenancy rights in favour of Yeshwanta Jadhav and without his name appearing in the register of protected tenants, the certificate could not have been issued under section 38(6). She would submit that the earlier orders rendered against the two sons of deceased Nadimuddin could not be treated as res judicata because their appeals were dismissed only on technical ground i.e. for the reason that it was held as barred by limitation. She submits that the grounds for challenge of the certificate by deceased respondent - Afsar Begum are totally different and as such, she was not bound by the outcome of the earlier litigation in this context. Hence, Mrs. Kulkarni urged to dismiss the petition. 7. Before I proceed to consider the rival submissions, it may be useful to examine the procedure required to be followed for the purpose of deciding questions arising in respect of purchase of land by tenant and compulsory transfer of ownership to tenants. For this purpose, Rule 14 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1958 (for short, "the HT&AL Rules") may be considered. It contemplates the Tenancy Tribunal to prepare a provisional list in Form VIII containing: (1) the names of such tenants as may be deemed to be protected tenants under section 37-A, (2) the extent of land held by such tenants. (3) the names of the landholders of such tenants; and (4) the total area of land owned by such landholders including the land under cultivation of their tenants. (3) the names of the landholders of such tenants; and (4) the total area of land owned by such landholders including the land under cultivation of their tenants. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14 makes it incumbent that the provisional list prepared under sub-rule (1) shall be published by affixing a copy thereof to the notice board in the village chavdi. The provisional list needs due publication and thereafter, objections can be filed by the concerned persons. Thus, if name of a person is deleted from such provisional list and he claims to be a tenant of a particular land, then he may raise objection regarding such omission of his name from the provisional list. So also, if name of a person is erroneously included in such a provisional list, the land-owner/land-lord may raise objection about such entry in the provisional list on the ground that the person whose name is shown in the list is not a protected tenant. These objections are required to be considered summarily inquired into before finalisation of the list of protected tenants. 8. The compulsory transfer of ownership to tenants may be effected by following Rule 23. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 23 reads as follows: "(1) After the issue of a notification under section 38-F the Tribunal shall cause summary enquiries to be made in respect of land held by tenants deemed to be protected tenants under section 37-A and their landholders and shall prepare a list in Form XV of such protected tenants and the description tenant is deemed to be the full owner under section 38-F." A careful reading of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 23 will make it manifestly clear that the certificate in Form XVI to each of the protected tenants shall be issued after declaration of a final list under sub-Rule (3). The procedure contemplated under the Rules, therefore, requires preparation of a provisional list in Form VIII, publication of the list, calling of the objections, if any, summary hearing of the objections and thereafter, preparation of final list of protected tenants as envisaged in Rule 23(3). 9. The question whether deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav was a protected tenant or he was not a tenant in respect of land Survey No.202-AA falls within exclusive domain of the Tenancy Tribunal. The issuance of the statutory ownership certificate is a ministerial act. Mr. 9. The question whether deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav was a protected tenant or he was not a tenant in respect of land Survey No.202-AA falls within exclusive domain of the Tenancy Tribunal. The issuance of the statutory ownership certificate is a ministerial act. Mr. Darak invited my attention to certain observations in "Bharatlal s/o. Hemraj Vs. Kondiba Govinda Jadhav and others" 2001(3) Mh.L.J. 380 : [2001(2) ALL MR 167]. A Single Bench of this Court held that declaration under section 38-E is not a decision or order within the meaning of section 90 of the HT&AL Act and, therefore, no appeal against such certificate is maintainable. It is observed that issuance of the certificate in Form XVI in favour of a protected tenant is only ministerial act which has to be executed as a result of the final outcome of the enquiry contemplated under Rule 23 of the HT&AL Rules. The learned Single Judge held that such certificate is not a decision or adjudication of the rival contentions of the parties and, therefore, it cannot be treated as appealable order. Similar view is expressed in Kishan s/o. Ganpati Muley deceased L.Rs. Indrabai w/o. Kishanrao Muley and others Vs. Abdul Razak s/o. Abdul Kadar and others". 2005(4) Mh.L.J. 180 . 10. Question involved in the present petition is not whether the certificate issued under section 38(6) was amenable to appellate jurisdiction, or that it is un assessable if it is issued after due enquiry. The real question is whether the certificate could be issued when name of deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav was not shown in the provisional list of protected tenants, drawn in Form No. VIII as required under Rule 14, nor it was shown in the final list of the protected tenants as required under Rule 23, provided in Form XV and, therefore, the rectification could be effected by the Tenancy Tribunal? 11. 11. The expression "protected tenant" is defined under section 2(r) of the HT&AL Act to mean a person, who is deemed to be a protected tenant under the provisions of sections 34 to 37 -A Chapter IV of the Act refers to protected tenant to mean that a person, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) (3) of section 34, as deemed protected tenant if he has held the land as a tenant continuously for a period of not less than six (6) years, being a period wholly included in the Fasli years 1342 to 1352 (both years inclusive) or for a period of not less than six years immediately preceding the first day of January, 1948, or for a period of not less than six years commencing not earlier than the 1st day of the Fasli year 1353 (6th October, 1943) and completed before the commencement of this Act. The Act further provides for a scheme to decide disputed questions regarding dispute raised about status of a protected tenant. The dispute ought to be raised within one year from the commencement of the Act as contemplated under section 35 and is required to be decided by the Tahsildar. Mr. Darak would submit that when there was no such dispute raised within period of one year after commencement of the Act, the status of the deceased tenant - Yeshwanta Jadhav could not be lateron challenged and, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. It is pertinent to notice that status of deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav was not that of a protected tenant declared under section 34 of Chapter-IV. There was no occasion to raise dispute under section 35 for want of compliance of the definition of expression protected tenant under section 34 of Chapter-IV. It is pertinent to note that section 8 of the HT&AL Act empowers the Tahsildar to decide question whether a person is tenant or not. Therefore, when the landlord opposes status of a person claiming to be tenant, the Tahsildar can decide that matter in the same proceedings. In the present case, there is no such adjudication order placed on record. There is also no extract of the register maintained under sections 37-A and 38-E of the HT &AL Act which indicates inclusion of the name of deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav in the relevant register of protected tenants. 12. In the present case, there is no such adjudication order placed on record. There is also no extract of the register maintained under sections 37-A and 38-E of the HT &AL Act which indicates inclusion of the name of deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav in the relevant register of protected tenants. 12. Section 37-A(2) reads as follows: "37-A. Persons holding land as tenant at the commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1955, to be deemed to be protected tenants: (1) ***** (2) The rights as a protected tenant of a person deemed under sub-section (1) to be a protected tenant shall be recorded in the Record of Rights, or where there is no Record of Rights in such village record as may be prescribed." A plain reading of section 37-A would make it amply clear that deeming effect is given to tenancy of a class of persons in possession of tenanted land. The rights of a protected tenant are required to be entered in the Record of Rights. The fact situation in the present case is that rights of deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav were not recorded in the Record of Rights as contemplated under section 37-A(2) nor in the provisional list in Form-VII required to be prepared under Rule 14 nor his name was shown in the final list of protected tenants which is required to be drawn in Form XV under Rule 23(1) of the HT&AL Act. On behalf of the respondents, an extract of the relevant register of protected tenants is placed on record. It appears that name of deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav was shown only in relation to land bearing Survey No. 189, admeasuring 1 Acre, 37 Gunthas. The deceased respondent (Afsar Begum) had filed copies of Pahani Patrak from 1950 to 1956 alongwith a certificate issued by the Tahsildar which clearly showed that name of said Yeshwanta Jadhav was not recorded in the register of protected tenants. On perusal of the entries in the Pahani Patraks, it can be gathered that he was not shown as tenant of the land owned by deceased Nadimuddin. His name appeared in the Pahani Patrak for the year 1953-1954 for the first time, as a tenant of Pattedar Mohammad Jamrudbi of the entire land Survey No.202. On perusal of the entries in the Pahani Patraks, it can be gathered that he was not shown as tenant of the land owned by deceased Nadimuddin. His name appeared in the Pahani Patrak for the year 1953-1954 for the first time, as a tenant of Pattedar Mohammad Jamrudbi of the entire land Survey No.202. Amongst various sharers of the said land, Pattedar Mohammad Jamrudbi was one of the co-sharers and her share was being cultivated by deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav. The land Survey No.202-AA was not shown to be in his actual possession as a tenant. It is quite clear, therefore, that erroneously the certificate was issued to him under section 38(6) on totally wrong assumption that he was a protected tenant in respect of Survey No.202-AA. 13. Mr. Darak would submit that when the two (2) sons of deceased Nadimuddin had lost the legal battle when they had challenged the certificate under section 38 issued in favour of Yeshwanta Jadhav and the order rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in case No.108/B/71-Bhir on 5th November, 1971 had become final, the same issue could not be re-agitated by deceased respondent - Afsar Begum. He would submit that now the unsuccessful litigants i.e. the two sons of deceased Nadimuddin will be the real beneficiaries of such orders rendered by the revenue Tribunals including Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in the next round of litigation initiated by the deceased respondent - Afsar Begum because they are her legal representatives. He argued that those who had lost their claims on previous occasion will now emerge as successful litigants if the impugned order is maintained. He submitted, therefore, to set aside the impugned judgment. 14. The contentions of Mr. Darak may prima facie appear to be attractive. However, on merits, it is difficult to accept his submissions. The application filed by the two sons of deceased Nadimuddin was dismissed due to bar of limitation. The deceased respondent - Afsar Begum was not a party to the said proceedings, nor there was any decision rendered on merits. Hence, such decision cannot be treated as res judicata. For, there was no finding rendered on merits. 15. Mr. Darak seeks to rely on certain observations in ''Mohammad Kavi Mohamad Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim", (1997)6 SCC 71 . The deceased respondent - Afsar Begum was not a party to the said proceedings, nor there was any decision rendered on merits. Hence, such decision cannot be treated as res judicata. For, there was no finding rendered on merits. 15. Mr. Darak seeks to rely on certain observations in ''Mohammad Kavi Mohamad Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim", (1997)6 SCC 71 . He would submit that though no time limit was prescribed for exercise of power under section 8 of the HT &AL Act, yet, the application filed by deceased respondent Afsar Begum could not be entertained after lapse of many years. In the given case, suo motu enquiry was started by the Mamlatdar somewhere in September, 1973 in respect of the transfer which had taken place in 1972. The Apex Court held that the suo motu power under section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1976 was not exercised by the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time. The facts of the given case are on different footings. In the present case, the statutory ownership certificate was issued in favour of deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav even though he was not declared as a protected tenant of land Survey No.202-AA and his name did not appear in the relevant register. His name was surreptitiously entered and mistakenly, the certificate of statutory ownership was issued in his favour without any basis. Obviously, such inherent defect could be rectified at any time. There is no bar of limitation in case the decision is rendered without any legal basis, by mistake or fraud. In Bachan and another Vs. Kankar and others ( AIR 1972 S.C. 2157 ), the Apex Court held that a person cannot be conferred adhivasi rights on basis of an entry incorrectly introduced in the Record of Rights in his favour. It is observed: "The High Court wrongly held that though the entry was incorrect it could not be said to be fictitious. It is too obvious to be stressed that an entry which is incorrectly introduced into the records by reason of ill-will or hostility is not only shorn of authenticity but also becomes utterly useless without any lawful basis." 16. The entry of the name of deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav in the subsequent record for declaring him as person entitled to become statutory owner under section 38-C of the HT &AL Act must be regarded as fictitious, unfounded and useless. The entry of the name of deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav in the subsequent record for declaring him as person entitled to become statutory owner under section 38-C of the HT &AL Act must be regarded as fictitious, unfounded and useless. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal usefully referred to observations of this Court in Vyankatesh Deshpande Vs. Kusum Kulkarni (1976 Mh.L.J. 373). A Division Bench of this Court held that the acts of the revenue officer, or order which can be termed as invalid and without jurisdiction would be nullity. So, it is not necessary for anyone to object such order or act for setting aside the same. The null and void act can be challenged in any proceedings. Obviously, when the declaration of statutory ownership under section 38(6) could not be granted in favour of deceased Yeshwanta Jadhav, for the reason that he was totally ineligible to claim status of protected tenant in respect of the land survey No.202-AA, the certificate can be regarded as non-est in the eye of law. Needless to say, whether the legal representatives of deceased respondent - Afsar Begum became ultimate beneficiaries of the impugned decision, though had lost the challenge to such order in the past, is of no much significance. Once it is found that the certificate issued in favour of said Yeshwanta Jadhav is null and void, there hardly appears any substantial error committed by the learned designated Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The impugned order is, therefore, legal and proper. 17. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.