JUDGMENT S.J. Vazifdar, J.-The petitioner is the same in the above writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the common order and judgment dated 21.3.2003 allowing five applications for revision filed by various respondents in the above writ petitions by setting aside the order and judgment of the Dy. Collector allowing the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing Appeal Nos. 11 and 12/2000. 2. Although the application for condonation of delay has been contested at length before the Dy. Collector and Administrative Tribunal in revision. I do not consider it necessary to set out the various contentions especially those pertaining to the merits of the disputes in detail. The Dy. Collector condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the relevant facts and exercising discretion and jurisdiction on the essential and material aspect. There was no warrant for the Administrative Tribunal to interfere with this exercise of discretion especially in revisional jurisdiction. 3. The petitioner and his brother-respondent No. 2 in writ petition No. 371/2003 claimed to be the owners of the properties which are the subject matter of the above proceedings. The respondent No. 1 claimed to be a tenant in respect of the suit properties. 4. According to the respondents by an order dated 30.11.1988 the respondent No. 1 was declared to be the tenant by the Mamlatdar with respect to four properties bearing survey Nos. 61/1, 62/1, 63/2 and 65/3. It appears that the survey No. 65/3 was later sub-divided and given survey Nos. 65/3 and 54/1-A. By an order dated 10.9.1992 the Mamlatdar allowed respondent No. 2 as a deemed tenant to purchase the said four properties. By a further order dated 16.5.1996 the Mamlatdar allowed respondent No. 1 to purchase survey No. 65/1-A. 5. The petitioner contended that it was not necessary for him to challenge the above orders as the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to pass the said orders. That is a separate aspect with which I am not concerned in these petitions. 6. By an order dated 20.5.1996 the Mamlatdar permitted b respondent No. 1 as a deemed purchaser to sell survey Nos. 63/2, 65/1-A and 65/3 to respondent No.2 in writ petition Nos. 374 and 375/2003. For convenience, I would refer to respondent No. 2 in writ petition Nos. 374 and 275/2003 as the subsequent purchaser. 6. By an order dated 20.5.1996 the Mamlatdar permitted b respondent No. 1 as a deemed purchaser to sell survey Nos. 63/2, 65/1-A and 65/3 to respondent No.2 in writ petition Nos. 374 and 375/2003. For convenience, I would refer to respondent No. 2 in writ petition Nos. 374 and 275/2003 as the subsequent purchaser. Pursuant thereto respondent No. 1 executed a sale deed dated 21.5.1996 in favour of the subsequent purchaser in respect of survey Nos. 63/2, 65/3 and 65/1-A. By a further sale deed dated 19.9.1996 the respondent No. 1 sold the survey No. 65/3 to the subsequent purchaser. 7. It is necessary to note here that in the year 1987 land acquisition proceedings were initiated with respect to survey No. 65/3. On 8.8.1987, the petitioner applied for appointment of compensation under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. In these proceedings respondent No. 1 made a statement that he had purchased the said property namely survey No. 65/3. 8. In view thereof the petitioner embarked on an enquiry as to the manner in which the respondent No. 1 had purchased the said properties. The petitioner attempted to obtain the necessary information especially the documents from the Mamlatdar's office regarding the first respondent's title. It is true that the petitioner could have directly requested respondent No. 1 to furnish the particulars. He did not do so. As it transpired it may not have made any difference for respondent No. 1 was reluctant to furnish the information as I will presently demonstrate. 9. The petitioner has admitted that in February, 1997 he traced the file. On 17.2.1997 he made an application to the Mamlatdar to furnish him the certified copies of the order dated 20.5.1996 which he found in the proceedings. It is important to note here that the same were furnished to the petitioner only on 8.2.1999. The delay in furnishing the petitioner the certified copies appears to have been on account of respondent No.1 having contested the petitioner's entitlement to even the certified copies of the documents. By an application dated 17.2.1997 filed before the Mamlatdar. the respondent No.1 stated that records ought not to be made available to anyone except to himself and petitioner's brother. The petitioner's brother-respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No. 371/2003 is supporting the respondents. It is difficult to understand their reluctance in permitting the petitioner the certified copies of the documents. By an application dated 17.2.1997 filed before the Mamlatdar. the respondent No.1 stated that records ought not to be made available to anyone except to himself and petitioner's brother. The petitioner's brother-respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No. 371/2003 is supporting the respondents. It is difficult to understand their reluctance in permitting the petitioner the certified copies of the documents. It is not necessary to refer to the various applications made by the petitioner to obtain the certified copies of the above orders and especially the order dated 20.5.1996. 10. Indeed having opposed the application even for certified copies which resulted in a delay of two years for the petitioner obtaining the same, it could hardly be contended by the respondents that the petitioner was responsible for the delay of these two years. 11. Exactly a week after the mamlatdar gave the petitioner the necessary documents he filed Appeal Nos. 11 and 12/2000 challenging the orders dated 16.5.1996 and 20.5.1996 respectively. The petitioner had applied for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 12. The Dy. Collector by a well reasoned order condoned the delay in filing the appeals. He inter alia held that the delay, if any was on account of the difficulty faced by the petitioner in obtaining the certified copies. The petitioner was 80 years old then. I am unable to say that the exercise of discretion by the Dy. Collector was abused or perverse. This exercise of discretion for these reasons in permitting the petitioner to have the claim adjudicated on merits can hardly be c considered to be unsustainable. The Dy. Collector passed a common order in the applications for condonation of delay in both the appeals. 13. The order of the Dy. Collector dated 11.1.2001 was challenged by the respondent No.1 the subsequent purchaser and the petitioner's brother-respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No. 371/2003. There were thus five revision applications filed under Section 50(2) of the Goa. Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. By a common impugned judgment and order dated 21.3.2003 the Administrative Tribunal set aside the said order. 14. The above five writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed in each of the revision applications. 15. The contentions raised regarding the maintainability of the appeals inter alia on the ground that the orders dated 30.9.1988 and 10.9.1996 were not challenged pertains to the merits. 14. The above five writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed in each of the revision applications. 15. The contentions raised regarding the maintainability of the appeals inter alia on the ground that the orders dated 30.9.1988 and 10.9.1996 were not challenged pertains to the merits. The same is not relevant in the application for condonation of delay. The petitioner has contended that it is not necessary for him to challenge the said orders in order to sustain his claim in the said appeals. That, as I said is a matter for the Dy. Collector to decide in the appeals. 16. The contention that the application for condonation of delay does not contain adequate particulars and facts is not well founded. The application atleast discloses the fact the petitioner during the relevant period was not even furnished with the necessary documents. He could hardly be blamed for the delay during this period. Moreover as I have stated earlier there was no warrant especially in revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the jurisdiction and discretion by the Dy. Collector in condoning the delay prior thereto. The petitioner is 80 years old. It is unreasonable to hold that his efforts in tracing the file between even June, 1996 when respondent No. 1 stated in the Land Acquisition proceedings that he had purchased the properties and February. 1997 when he managed to trace the same ought not to be considered in favour of allowing the application for condonation of delay. The delay thereafter was entirely due to the respondents. 17. In the circumstances, rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). There shall be no order as to costs. Needless to clarify the merits and contentions between the parties are kept open. The operation of this order is stayed upto and including 14.5.2010 to enable the respondents to challenge this order. Rule made absolute.