JUDGMENT & ORDER : P.P. Bhatt, J. By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2012 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.BS.95 of 2011 at Annexure-C and the order of the Deputy Collector dated 02.11.2011 passed in Tenancy Appeal No.1 of 2011 at Annexure-B and consequently by confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 14.04.1976 passed under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act at Annexure-A and also the certificate issued by the Mamlatdar and ALT under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act dated 14.06.1976 at Annexure-A. 2. Brief facts of the present petition are as under: 2.1 The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the tenants of the suit land bearing Survey No.342, Block No.383 admeasuring 0 Hector 82 Aare and 96 sq. mtrs. situated in the sim of village Puna, Taluka Surat City, District Surat. The suit land belonged to deceased Bhikhabhai Khushalbhai. The petitioners are cultivating the suit land as tenants. 2.2 The petitioners have been declared as tenants by order dated 14.04.1976, passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT and purchase price was fixed as per Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 ('the Tenancy Act' for short). The petitioners-tenants fully paid the purchase price as fixed by the Mamlatdar and ALT and therefore, the Certificate under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act was issued by the Mamlatdar and ALT on 14.06.1976, which was registered with the Office of Sub-Registrar at Surat vide Serial No.3224 dated 10.08.1976. Subsequently, the order passed under Section 32G came to be mutated in revenue record by entry No.3323 and the order passed under Section 32M came to be mutated by entry No.3324 on 12.05.2000 respectively. 2.3 The heirs of the original owner deceased Bhikhabhai Khushalbhai of the land in question by filing Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 2011 before the Deputy Collector challenged the said order dated 14.04.1976 and the Certificate dated 14.04.1976 issued to the petitioners, after more than 34 years, without filing an application for condonation of delay. Even the original owner of the land in question deceased Bhikhabhai Khushalbhai has not challenged the said order dated 14.04.1976 in his life time for about 8 years. Even the original owner of the land in question deceased Bhikhabhai Khushalbhai has not challenged the said order dated 14.04.1976 in his life time for about 8 years. The Deputy Collector after hearing both the parties, in his order dated 02.11.2011, has enumerated seven points culled out regarding the merits of the case, and on the basis of the same, the Deputy Collector has allowed the application for condonation of delay which was never filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 (heirs of the original owner of the land). 2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order said order dated 02.11.2011, passed by the Deputy Collector, the petitioners preferred the Revision Application No.TEN.BS.95 of 2011 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties by order its dated 09.01.2012 dismissed the Revision Application at preliminary stage and confirmed order dated 02.11.2011, on the premise that after allowing the application for condonation of delay, the petitioners would be granted an opportunity for hearing on merits, therefore, they would not be prejudiced, and nor would there be a violation of the principles of natural justice. 2.5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 09.01.2012 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.BS.95 of 2011 and the order of the Deputy Collector dated 02.11.2011 passed in Tenancy Appeal No.1 of 2011, the petitioners have filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta appearing for learned advocate Mr.J.M. Patel for the petitioners, learned senior advocate Mr.S.N. Shelat appearing for learned advocate Mr.N.M. Kapadia for the private respondents and learned AGP Mr.J.K. Shah appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 4. Learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta appearing for learned advocate Mr.J.M. Patel for the petitioners submits that the impugned judgment and order dated 09.01.2012 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.BS.95 of 2011 and the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 02.11.2011 in Tenancy Appeal No.1 of 2011 are contrary to law, equity and weight of the evidence recorded in the case. 4.1 It is submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta the impugned order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the revision application dated 09.01.2012 is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, capricious and perverse and it run contrary to evidence. 4.1 It is submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta the impugned order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the revision application dated 09.01.2012 is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, capricious and perverse and it run contrary to evidence. It is further submitted that the Regulation 13(4) of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulation provides that for the purpose of making an order under sub-regulation (3), the Tribunal may direct the Registrar to call for the records and proceedings relating to the appeal or application under consideration, or any other papers or documents, from the Collector or any authority concerned. Thus, when the Tribunal has dismissed the Revision Application at preliminary stage, it is the duty of the Tribunal to call for the records and proceedings from the Court below so that it can ascertain the case, as the Tribunal is finally deciding the rights of the parties. It is further submitted that in the present case, even though it was an obligatory duty on the part of the Tribunal to call for the records and proceedings from the authority below if the Tribunal wants to decide the Revision Application at preliminary stage, the petitioners made an application dated 04.01.2012 before the Tribunal requesting the Tribunal to call for the records and proceedings of Tenancy Appeal No.1 of 2011, in spite of that, the Tribunal has not called for the records and proceedings from the authority below and simply dismissed the Revision Application at the preliminary stage without calling and examining the records and proceedings and also without referring the documents produced by the petitioners. Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not calling for the records and proceedings. Thus, it has committed a breach of aforesaid regulations and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction and it is unjust and nonest and therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 4.2 Learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta further submits that even on merits, the Tribunal ought to have seen that in the present case, the petitioners have been declared as tenants by order dated 14.04.1976, passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT and purchase price was fixed as per Section 32G of the Tenancy Act. 4.2 Learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta further submits that even on merits, the Tribunal ought to have seen that in the present case, the petitioners have been declared as tenants by order dated 14.04.1976, passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT and purchase price was fixed as per Section 32G of the Tenancy Act. The petitioners-tenants fully paid the purchase price as fixed by the Mamlatdar and ALT and therefore, the Certificate under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act was issued by the Mamlatdar and ALT on 14.06.1976. It is further submitted that the original owner i.e. deceased Bhikhabhai Khushalbhai expired on 23.12.1984 and during his lifetime for a period of about 08 years, he had not challenged the said order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT. Not only that, even the heirs and legal representatives of deceased owner have preferred the Tenancy Appeal No.1 of 2011 under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act after a period of more than 34 years. It is further submitted that the appeal is required to be filed within a period of 60 days as provided under Section 79 of the Tenancy Act, and therefore, the appeal is grossly barred by delay and latches and on this ground alone the Tribunal ought to have quashed and set aside the order of the Deputy Collector and ought to have admitted and allowed the revision application preferred by the petitioners, and therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 4.3 Learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta further submits that in the present case, the Tribunal ought to have seen that the legal heirs of the original owner have not filed any separate application seeking condonation of delay along with the Tenancy Appeal No.1 of 2011. It is obligatory on their part to file an application seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons/sufficient cause which prevented them to file appeal within a prescribed time limit. In the present case, the heirs of the original owner of the land in question have not filed any application for condonation of delay and therefore, on this ground alone the Deputy Collector ought to have dismissed the appeal, as the heirs of the original owner of the land in question have not filed any separate application seeking condonation of delay and they have not explained the reasons for delay. It is further submitted that the Tribunal and Deputy Collector have committed an error apparent on the face of the record in condoning the delay on the ground that the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT is null and void and therefore, no period of limitation is applicable. It is further submitted that even null and void order is required to be challenged within a period of limitation. There is catena of judgments of this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court, whereby it has been held that even null and void order must be challenged within a period of limitation. Therefore, in view of settled legal position that even the null and void order is required to be challenged within a period of limitation. Thus, the authorities below have committed jurisdictional error as the authorities below have no jurisdiction to entertain the time barred appeal or application, and therefore, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 4.4 Learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta further submits that there is no inconsistency as observed by the Tribunal and Deputy Collector regarding the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 14.04.1976 and the certificate issued under Section 32M dated 14.06.1976. It seems that there is some mistake in describing the date, but by that, the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT cannot be said to be illegal, null and void. The Tribunal also erred in holding that principles of delay and latches are not applicable in challenging the null and void order. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have seen that appeal is filed after a period of more than 34 years. It is further submitted that in the meantime, the petitioners have applied for change in the use of the land in question i.e. non-agricultural purpose and for residential purpose and the petitioners have already paid Rs. 58 Lacs before the authorities towards premium subject to outcome of the Special Civil Application No.19631 of 2007. It is further submitted that the petitioner has invited the attention of the Tribunal regarding pending petition before this Hon'ble Court, but the Tribunal has not considered the said contention and has without calling for the records and proceedings of the lower authority, dismissed the revision application at the preliminary admission stage. It is further submitted that the petitioner has invited the attention of the Tribunal regarding pending petition before this Hon'ble Court, but the Tribunal has not considered the said contention and has without calling for the records and proceedings of the lower authority, dismissed the revision application at the preliminary admission stage. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in observing that the petitioners' interest is not affected by the order of the Deputy Collector dated 02.11.2011. The said observation of the Tribunal is beyond the records and proceedings of the case. It is further submitted that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the merits of the matter cannot be considered. 4.5 It is further submitted that the order issuing certificate under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act is appealable before the Collector under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act. In the present case, the heirs of the original owners have not filed any appeal against the Certificate issued under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act dated 14.06.1976. In view of that, the certificate issued under Section 32M is final and conclusive evidence of proof. Therefore also, the Deputy Collector erred in proceeding further with the appeal and the Tribunal has also lost sight on this fact. 4.6 It is further submitted that the Collector, Surat initiated suo-motu RTS proceedings being Case No.3 of 2010 for revising the mutation entry Nos.3323 and 3324 dated 12.05.2000 by issuing show cause notice dated 02.03.2010. Against that, the petitioners along with others have filed their reply before the Collector raising number of points. Ultimately, the Collector, Surat by his order dated 27.09.2010 was pleased to quash the notice issued by him. In view of the above, it is, therefore, prayed that the present petition may be allowed. 5. As against the above submission, learned senior advocate Mr.S.N.Shelat appearing with the learned advocate Mr.N.M.Kapadia for private respondents submits that the petitioners have played fraud upon the revenue authorities and the genuineness of the order dated 14.04.1976 passed under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act, as well as the Certificate issued under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act, by the Mamlatdar and ALT, is doubtful. It is submitted that the authenticity of the order dated 14.04.1976 is a seriously disputed question and an application for initiating criminal proceedings has been filed. It is submitted that the authenticity of the order dated 14.04.1976 is a seriously disputed question and an application for initiating criminal proceedings has been filed. However, the Revision Application against the order passed by the Criminal Court for further investigation is pending before this Court. It is further submitted that the signature of the mother of respondents Nos.1 and 2, upon the notice issued under Section 135D is also not genuine. Therefore, respondents Nos.1 and 2 had no knowledge of the proceedings. It is further submitted that in view of this aspect, there is no delay in initiating the proceedings and, in any case, it is not necessary to file an application for condonation of delay, along with the appeal. 5.1 It is further submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr.S.N.Shelat that the order regarding condonation of delay is an interlocutory order and if the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has not interfered with this order, this court may not interfere. It is further submitted that delay is to be seen from the date of knowledge and limitation would begin from this stage. It is further submitted that consideration of the merits of the case at the time of deciding an application for condonation of delay would be a valid consideration. It is further submitted that a liberal approach ought to be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 5.2 While referring to the order of the Deputy Collector dated 02.11.2011, it is submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr.S.N.Shelat that the said order has been passed upon consideration of the inquiry report of the Revenue Inquiry Commissioner and several aspects that have been mentioned in the said order have rightly been considered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 5.3 In reply to the submission regarding calling for the Record and Proceedings by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the learned senior advocate Mr. S.N.Shelat submitted that as per Rule 13(4) of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulations, 1958, it is not mandatory upon the Tribunal to call for the record and proceedings. It is submitted that as per Regulation No.15, record and proceedings can be called for when the appeal is admitted. However, in the present case, the Revision Application has not been admitted by the Tribunal and has been rejected at the preliminary stage, therefore, this Regulation would not apply. It is submitted that as per Regulation No.15, record and proceedings can be called for when the appeal is admitted. However, in the present case, the Revision Application has not been admitted by the Tribunal and has been rejected at the preliminary stage, therefore, this Regulation would not apply. In view of the above, it is, therefore, prayed that the present petition may be dismissed. 6. Regard being had to the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that by the impugned order of the Deputy Collector dated 02.11.2011, the application for condonation of delay purportedly filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 has been allowed after considering the merits of the main case, as enumerated in the said order. However, the record does not reveal that such an application had been filed. Even on bare reading of the order, there are no averments regarding delay in reasoning part. The Deputy Collector has without assigning any reasons or justification for condoning the inordinate delay of about more than 34 years without any application for condition of delay, condone the delay in one line, considering the merits of the main case on presumption the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT is null and void. Therefore, there is an apparent error on the face of the record and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal it appears that the Tribunal erred in holding that principles of delay and latches are not applicable in challenging the null and void order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT. The Tribunal has also not taken into consideration the fact that the Deputy Collector has condoned delay without any application for condonation of delay showing cogent and sufficient grounds for inordinate delay of more than 34 years and also not appreciated that while condoning inordinate delay, the Deputy Collector has not assigned any reasons or justification. The Tribunal ought to have seen that appeal is filed after a period of more than 34 years and in the meantime, the petitioners have applied for change in the use of the land in question i.e. non-agricultural purpose and for residential purpose and the petitioners have already paid Rs. The Tribunal ought to have seen that appeal is filed after a period of more than 34 years and in the meantime, the petitioners have applied for change in the use of the land in question i.e. non-agricultural purpose and for residential purpose and the petitioners have already paid Rs. 58 Lacs before the authorities towards premium subject to outcome of the Special Civil Application No.19631 of 2007. Though the petitioner invited the attention of the learned Tribunal regarding pending petition before this Hon'ble Court, the Tribunal has not considered the said fact. The Tribunal has without calling for the records and proceedings of the lower authority as provided in the Regulations of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulations, 1958, mechanically dismissed the revision application at the preliminary admission stage. It further appears that the learned Tribunal has erred in observing that the petitioners' interest is not affected by the order of the Deputy Collector dated 02.11.2011. The said observation of the Tribunal is beyond the records and proceedings of the case. 8. The order of the Deputy Collector has been upheld by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Revision Application of the petitioners has been dismissed at the preliminary stage. It appears that the Regulation Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulations, 1958 are relevant for the purpose deciding the case, and therefore, the same are reproduced herein below : "Regulation 13: Procedure on registering appeal or application,- (1) Where an appeal or application has been registered, the Registrar shall, as soon thereafter as possible, place it before the Tribunal for preliminary hearing of which notice shall be given to the appellant or applicant or to his duly appointed agents or lawyer. (2) A notice under sub-section (1) shall state that if the party does not appear before the Tribunal either in person or through an agent or lawyer on the date mentioned in the notice, the appeal or application, as the case may be, shall be heard and decided ex-parte. (3) The Tribunal may, for sufficient reasons, admit or reject the appeal or application: Provided that no appeal or application shall be rejected without giving reasons in wiring for doing so. (3) The Tribunal may, for sufficient reasons, admit or reject the appeal or application: Provided that no appeal or application shall be rejected without giving reasons in wiring for doing so. (4) For the purpose of making an order under sub-regulation (3), the Tribunal may direct the Registrar to call for the record and proceedings relating to the appeal or application under consideration, or any other papers or documents, from the Collector or any authority concerned. Provided that the record and proceedings shall not be called or processes issued unless the process fee prescribed under regulation 47 is duly received by the Registrar. Regulation 14: Stay of execution of Award or Order-(1) Pending a decision on an appeal or an application for revision, the Tribunal may direct the execution of any award or order against which the appeal or application is made to be stayed on such conditions as my be deemed fit. (2) An order made under sub-regulation (1) may be vacated or modified by the Tribunal provided that prior notice is given to the party in whose favour such order has been made to show cause why it should not be so vacated or modified. Regulation 15: Record to be called for - (1) in all cases in which the record and proceedings are not called for under sub-regulation (4) of regulation 13, the Registrar shall, as soon as may be, after the prescribed process fees are paid and an appeal or application is admitted, call for the records and proceedings relating to such appeal or application from the Collector or any other authority concerned. (2) When any record and proceedings are called for by the Registrar under sub-section (1) of this regulation or under sub-regulation (4) of regulation 13, the Collector or the authority concerned shall send with such record and proceedings a diary in chronological order showing the date when record and proceedings were commended and the dates and pages of the principal orders passed and of important papers or maps or plans filed in such proceedings." 9. The Regulation 13(4) of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulation provides that for the purpose of making an order under sub-regulation (3), the Tribunal may direct the Registrar to call for the records and proceedings relating to the appeal or application under consideration, or any other papers or documents, from the Collector or any authority concerned. The Regulation 13(4) of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulation provides that for the purpose of making an order under sub-regulation (3), the Tribunal may direct the Registrar to call for the records and proceedings relating to the appeal or application under consideration, or any other papers or documents, from the Collector or any authority concerned. Thus, in the present case, when the Tribunal has dismissed the Revision Application at preliminary stage, it was the duty of the Tribunal to call for the records and proceedings from the Court below so that it can ascertain the case, as the Tribunal was finally deciding the rights of the parties. In the present case, even though it was an obligatory duty on the part of the Tribunal to call for the records and proceedings from the authority below if the Tribunal wanted to decide the Revision Application at preliminary stage, the petitioners made an application dated 04.01.2012 before the Tribunal requesting the Tribunal to call for the records and proceedings of Tenancy Appeal No.1 of 2011, in spite of that, the Tribunal has not called for the records and proceedings from the authority below and simply dismissed the Revision Application at the preliminary stage without calling and examining the records and proceedings and also without referring the documents produced by the petitioners along with the Revision Application. Thus, it appears that the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not calling for the records and proceedings. Thus, the Tribunal has committed a breach of aforesaid regulations and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction and it is unjust and nonest and therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that impugned the order dated 09.01.2012 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.BS.95 of 2011 and the order dated 02.11.2011 passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of the 2011 are unjust, illegal, improper as the same are passed without assigning any reasons or justification for condonation of inordinate delay of more than 34 years and without taking consideration of materials on record. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and both the impugned orders dated 09.01.2012 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.BS.95 of 2011 and the order dated 02.11.2011 passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 2011 are hereby quashed and set aside. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.