JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) 1. The present LPA is filed against judgment and order dated 30.09.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No.3094 of 2001, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition for the reasons recorded in the judgment and order and discharged Rule with no order as to costs and vacated interim relief, if any. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Amit M.Panchal with learned Advocate Mr.Tattavam K.Patel for the appellants. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that one of the petitioners in SCA No.3094 of 2001, i.e. Mr.Shantaram Haribhai Jadhav had expired on 29.01.1998. A copy of the death certificate is produced at page No.Z of the compilation. SCA No.3094 of 2001 was filed against judgment and order dated 25.09.2000 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN B.A.106/1992. A copy of memo of Revision Application is produced at page No.22 of the compilation, wherein Mr.Shantaram Haribhai Jadhav is impleaded as applicant No.3. This very Revision Application came to be decided by judgment and order dated 25.09.2000, a copy of which is produced at page No.13 of the compilation, wherein also, Mr.Shantaram Haribhai Jadhav is shown as applicant No.3. In the petition memo also, Mr.Shantaram Haribhai Jadhav is impleaded as petitioner No.3. In the ‘List of Events’, it is mentioned that, “The questions involved in this petition for determination are that whether the order passed in R.T.S. Case rejecting the application of the respondent for getting his name entered in Record of Rights as the cultivator of the suit lands and not carried further for any challenge, operates as bar against the inquiry u/s. 320 (sic-32(O) of the Act, in absence of any inquiry made u/s.70(b) of the Act? and whether since the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 the suit lands ceased to be agricultural lands and hence, tenancy Act is not applicable to the suit lands? and whether in absence of setting aside abatement order of joining the legal heirs of the deceased is null and void and whether impugned tenancy is null and void?” (emphasis supplied) 4. and whether in absence of setting aside abatement order of joining the legal heirs of the deceased is null and void and whether impugned tenancy is null and void?” (emphasis supplied) 4. Learned Single Judge is pleased to reject the petition taking into consideration that there was negligence or lethargy on the part of heirs of deceased Mr.Shantaram Haribhai Jadhav because the case of the other side which is pressed into service with all vehemence is that it is on account of the so called negligence and lethargy on the part of heirs deceased Mr.Shantaram Haribhai Jadhav that they did not bring the fact of death of Mr.Shantaram Haribhai Jadhav to the notice of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the pending Revision Application which was filed on 15.02.1992, which came to be decided by judgment and order dated 25.09.2000. 5. Assuming for the sake of argument that there is some negligence or lethargy on the part of heirs of deceased Mr.Shantaram Haribhai Jadhav, the law remains the same and that is if an order is passed against a deceased person (he was one of the applicants before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and that Revision Application came to be dismissed), that judgment and order cannot be allowed to operate against that deceased person. 6. At this juncture, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that all what is required to be done is that the matter is required to be remitted back to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, to be decided after considering the merits and after giving an opportunity to the heirs of deceased Mr.Shantaram Haribhai Jadhav. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that this is an innocuous relief sought for because no other relief except remanding the matter to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and allowing parties to contest the matter on merits is asked for. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the present appeal is required to be allowed. The same is accordingly allowed. Judgment and order dated 30.09.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No.3094 of 2001 and the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN B.A.106/1992 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, to be decided absolutely in accordance with law, on merits, after giving full opportunity to both the parties. 8. The matter is remitted back to Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, to be decided absolutely in accordance with law, on merits, after giving full opportunity to both the parties. 8. At this juncture, learned Advocate Mr.P.M.Bhatt requested that taking into consideration the fact that the Revision Application was filed in the year 1992, which was decided in the year 2000 and we are in 2013, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal may be directed to decide the matter as early as possible. 9. The request is found reasonable. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is requested to decide the matter giving top priority. It will be in the fitness of things if the matter is decided as early as possible, but not later than 31.12.2013. 10. Learned Advocate Mr.P.M.Bhatt appearing for the respondents requested that it may be clarified that the observations made hereinabove are applicable only to the heirs of deceased Mr.Shantaram Haribhai Jadhav as others have not filed any LPA. The Court keeps this question open and declines to pass any such orders as law will take its own course. 11. At the request of the learned Advocate for the appellant, it is clarified that the matter is decided only on a short issue and the Court has not examined any other aspects of the matter and therefore, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal will not be influenced by any of the observations made either by this Court or the learned Single Judge. All contentions of both the sides are kept open and they will be at liberty to raise the same before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Appeal allowed