ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Review Application No.TEN / CA / 9 / 2018 in Revision Application No.TEN / BA/ 412 / 2006. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Venugopal Patel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Patel submitted that the petitioners herein have purchased land bearing Block No.426/1, 449, 451 and 416 of Village Kapurai, Tal.Dist.Vadodara by way of four separate registered sale deeds dated 20.05.2009 from Respondent Nos.5.1 to 5.4 who are legal heirs of Respondent No.5. Pursuant to the said sale-deeds name of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No.3126, 3127, 3128 and 3129 dated 25.05.2009. 3.1 According to Mr.Patel the aforesaid lands were originally belonging to Krishnalal Ramchandra @ Pujari of Shri Ramji Temple and the petitioners purchased the lands from his legal heirs. As per the record, pursuant to the sale-deeds executed in favour of petitioner on 20.05.2009, for which the Entry No.3126, 3127, 3128 and 3129 were mutated in the name of petitioners which were objected by the Respondent No.6 viz. Legal heirs of Becharbhai Maganbhai Patel before the Mamlatdar, Vadodara (City) and by way of four separate orders of even dated 14.12.2009 the aforesaid entries were rejected by passing separate orders in RTS / Takrari Case No.48 of 2009, 49 of 2009, 50 of 2009 and 51 of 2009. 3.2 The present petitioners being aggrieved by the said orders dated 14.12.2009 preferred appeal being RTS / Appeal Nos.256 of 2010, 258 of 2010, 259 of 2010 and 260 of 2010 before the Deputy Collector, Vadodara. Ultimately the Deputy Collector, Vadodara City vide common order dated 19.11.2010 rejected the appeals preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the orders dated 14.12.2009 and 19.01.2010 passed by the Deputy Collector in RTS / Takrari Case No.48 of 2009, 49 of 2009, 50 of 2009 and 51 of 2009 and further held that the aforesaid revenue entries, which are in dispute being Entry No.3126, 3127, 3128 and 3129 in respect of Block No.426/1, 449, 451, 416 of Mouje Kapurai, Tal.Dist.Vadodara would be subject to final outcome of Revision Application pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal being TEN / BA/ 412 of 2006. 3.3 The aforesaid order dated 19.11.2010 was further carried into Revision under Rule 108 (5) of Gujarat Land Revenue Rules before the Collector, Vadodara by way of RTS / RA / 174 of 2010 and ultimately the aforesaid revision application also was rejected by the Collector, Vadodara vide order dated 30.10.2012. 3.4 The present petitioners once again challenged the aforesaid order passed by the Collector, Vadodara in RTS / RA / No.174 of 2010 by preferring Revision Application being No.MVV/ HKP / VDD / 13/ of 2013 (‘13 of 2013’, for short) before the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad (‘SSRD’, for short) and the said Revision Application preferred by the petitioner under Rule 108(6) (a) of the Rules was also rejected by ‘SSRD’ vide order dated 10.07.2017. 3.5 It seems that the aforesaid order dated 10.07.2010 has become final as there is no mention in the petition about whether aforesaid order was ever challenged by the petitioner or not. 3.6 In the meantime, before petitioner purchased the land by way of registered sale-deed on 20.05.2009, it seems that some proceedings under Tenancy Act were going on against the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners in respect of the land in question. In respect of those proceedings, Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara passed an order dated 05.03.2005 in Tenancy Case No.503 of 2004. This order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara dated 05.03.2005 was carried in appeal before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) by way of Tenancy Appeal No.24 of 2006 which was decided on 27.11.2006 and, therefore, against the order dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Vadodara in Tenancy Appeal No.24 of 2006, the present Respondent No.2 had already preferred Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and in said Revision Application, the present Respondent No.5 i.e. heirs of deceased Jagdish Patel was joined as Respondent No.4. 3.7 It is the case of the petitioners that when the saledeed was executed on 20.05.2009, the aforesaid fact about the pendency of Revision Application No.TEN BA 412 of 2006 was concealed and petitioners were not knowing about the pendency of any such litigation. 3.7 It is the case of the petitioners that when the saledeed was executed on 20.05.2009, the aforesaid fact about the pendency of Revision Application No.TEN BA 412 of 2006 was concealed and petitioners were not knowing about the pendency of any such litigation. 3.8 In the aforesaid Revision Application No.TEN / BA/ 412 of 2006, an order dated 24.06.2010 was passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal stating that in view of application submitted dated 03.05.2010, the applicants of Revision Application submitted a pursis and stated that they did not want to prosecute the matter further and, therefore, may be permitted to withdraw application and hence on the basis of pursis dated 03.05.2010 vide order dated 24.06.2010 the aforesaid Revision Application No.TEN / BA / 412 / 2006 was withdrawn unconditionally before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad. 3.9 Record indicates that thereafter Review Application No.TEN / CA/ 25 of 2010 was preferred by legal heirs of deceased Kamleshbhai Kantibhai Patel and legal heirs of deceased Pankaj Kantibhai Patel challenging the aforesaid withdrawal order dated 24.06.2010 however Review Application being TEN / CA / 25 of 2010 was dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2010 by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad on the ground of locus of those applicants as they were not party to any of the proceeding before the lower courts including the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 3.10 After the order dated 21.10.2010, from the record, it seems that there was no further challenge to the aforesaid proceedings before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal until present petitioners challenged the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 24.06.2010 by way of Revision Application No.TEN / CA / 9 / 2018 in TEN / BA/ 412 / 2006 and sought review of the order dated 24.06.2010 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.412 of 2006. 3.11 The aforesaid revision application was rejected by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 05.03.2021 by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on two grounds i.e. (i) the review application was preferred after delay of 8 years and (ii) the petitioners were not party to the revenue application no. TEN / 412 / 2006 and, therefore, the petitioners have no locus. 3.12 It is the order dated 05.03.2021 which is under challenge by way of this petition passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal rejecting application of the petitioner which is under challenge by way of this petition. 4. TEN / 412 / 2006 and, therefore, the petitioners have no locus. 3.12 It is the order dated 05.03.2021 which is under challenge by way of this petition passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal rejecting application of the petitioner which is under challenge by way of this petition. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Patel for the petitioner. Mr.Patel submitted that the petitioner purchased the land on 20.05.2009 whereas Revision Application being NO.412 of 2006 was preferred and was pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal much prior to date on which the petitioners purchased the land in question by way of four separate registered sale-deeds. The petitioners were kept in absolute dark and petitioners had no knowledge about the pendency of those proceedings before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal or in respect of any tenancy proceedings and, therefore, petitioners are bona fide purchasers. The petitioners were pursuing remedy provided under the Bombay Land Revenue Code in respect of rejection of revenue entries no.3126, 3127, 3128 and 3129 and, therefore as petitioners were pursuing remedy before different forum, their application ought not to have been rejected on the ground of delay of eight years by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Learned Advocate Mr.Patel submitted that if the petitioners have chosen wrong forum to agitate their grievance because of their ignorance of law, the same may not be construed as if petitioners have set idle and, therefore, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ought to have considered merits of the matter rather then rejecting the application of the petitioners on technical ground. He submitted that petitioners had no knowledge about the pendency of proceedings before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the petitioners had no knowledge about those proceedings. Learned advocate Mr.Patel submitted that as the petitioners were pursuing remedy by preferring proceedings before the Revenue Authorities being ‘SSRD’ and in the meantime father of the petitioners passed away on 02.02.2014, the petitioners were not aware about the proceedings before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the petitioners came to know about the same only in January, 2018 and thereafter petitioners made attempts to file appropriate proceedings before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 4.1 Mr.Patel strongly emphasised on the averments made in para:9 of the petition to canvass that petitioners came to know about the proceedings before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal only in the year 2018 and, therefore, limitation qua petitioners would start only from 2018 and immediately on coming to know about the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 24.06.2010 in Revision Application No.TEN / 412 / 2006, the petitioners challenged the same by way of preferring application in the year 2018 itself and, therefore, as such there is no delay. Mr.Patel submitted that there is a circular dated 05.05.2009 by the Revenue Department wherein it is stated that in the meritorious case, merely delay could not be the ground of dismissal of application. 5.1 If the record which is produced by the petitioners, which is on record is perused, it does not support the version canvassed by the petitioners. As per say of the petitioners as soon as the petitioners executed sale-deed in his favour, four revenue entries being 3126, 3127, 3128 and 3129 were made in favour of the petitioners, which were objected by the respondents by preferring RTS Takrari Case No.48, 49, 50 and 51 of 2009 before the Mamlatdar, Vadodara and Mamlatdar, Vadodara vide order dated 14.12.2009 rejected those entries in favour of the petitioners. Now, if the four separate orders dated 14.12.2009 passed in RTS / Takrari Case No.48 of 2009, 49 of 2009, 50 of 2009 and 51 of 2009 which are on record from page:74 to 97 of petition compilation are perused, it clearly indicate that it was the present petitioners who were respondents in those proceedings as Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. In the order dated 14.12.2009, there is a clear mention about the dispute related to Tenancy Act which are in existence. In the order it is categorically stated that in the aforesaid order the applicant Jayantibhai Becharbhai Patel had produced copy of the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodara in Tenancy Case No.503 of 2004 and order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Vadodara in Tenancy Appeal No.28 of 2006 along with his application dated 18.08.2009. In the order it is categorically stated that in the aforesaid order the applicant Jayantibhai Becharbhai Patel had produced copy of the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodara in Tenancy Case No.503 of 2004 and order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Vadodara in Tenancy Appeal No.28 of 2006 along with his application dated 18.08.2009. In the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, it is also categorically stated that against the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Naranbhai Krushnabhai Patel had preferred application being TEN / BA/ 412 of 2006 which is pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and in that application the present petitioner is not joined as party. The Mamlatdar and ALT, while passing the order dated 14.12.2009, rejected the entries mutated in favour of the present petitioners. Though the aforesaid order passed on 14.12.2009 which was carried in appeal being RTS Appeal No.256 of 2010, 257 of 2010, 258 of 2010 and 260 of 2010 before the Deputy Collector, Vadodara, it seems from the record that petitioner despite his knowledge about pending litigation before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal did nothing to get themselves impleaded as party respondents in those proceedings before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 5.2 Ultimately though the petitioner had knowledge about the pending litigation before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at least on 14.10.2009 the date on which the Mamlatdar and ALT passed an order in respect of Revenue Entries, the petitioners did nothing to get impleaded as party respondents before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in pending Revision Application being TEN/ BA/ 412 of 2006. Ultimately, the said Revision Application was withdrawn by the applicant of that application on the basis of pursis submitted on 03.05.2010 but even thereafter also some other respondents preferred an application by preferring Review Application being TEN / CA/ 25 / 2010 which was ultimately dismissed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 21.10.2010. The petitioner did nothing to challenge the aforesaid order despite the knowledge from December, 2009. 5.3 Thereafter even in the year 2010 Deputy Collector Vadodara rejected the application being Appeal No.256, 258, 259 and 260 of 2010 preferred by the petitioner by specifically observing that Revenue entries shall be subject to final outcome of Revision Application pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal being 412 of 20015 (it seems that by mistake 416 of 2006 is mentioned as 412 of 2005). Despite that petitioners, as it seems from the record, did nothing to indicate that they made any effort to challenge the order passed by the GRT in respect of pending litigation wherein he was not party being Revision Application No. TEN / BA/ 412 / 2006 and now the petitioners have come forward with a case that petitioners came to know about the aforesaid pending litigation only in the year 2018, which cannot be believed. The record indicates that the petitioners have ample opportunity all throughout from December 2009 to get impleaded in the proceedings before the GRT and to participate in those proceedings or to object withdrawal of revision application being Revision Application No. TEN / BA/ 412 / 2006 and, therefore, grounds stated by the learned advocate Mr.Patel in respect of delay occurred by the petitioners cannot be believed. Learned advocate Mr.Patel submitted that petitioner were pursuing remedy before the wrong forum in respect of RTS proceedings which also cannot be believed for the reason that RTS proceedings and proceedings under Tenancy Act are altogether different and separate proceedings and, therefore, there is no question of petitioner having pursuing remedy before the wrong forum. In fact as stated in the forgoing paras, there is specific mentioning about the pending litigation about Tenancy Act in the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT as well as Deputy Collector, Vadodara and in those proceedings at least the petitioner was party and, therefore, petitioner’s ground for condonation of delay on the ground that he was unaware about the pending litigation before the GRT cannot be believed and, therefore, the tribunal has rightly dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner and, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid order and, therefore petition deserves to be dismissed. 5.4 As far as petitioner’s submission with regard to circular dated 05.05.2009 by the Revenue Department in respect of the fact that matter having merit may not be dismissed on the ground of delay is concerned, here the case of delay is on account of negligence on the part petitioner and despite the petitioner had knowledge about the pending litigation since December, 2009, after purchasing land on 20.05.2009, it is only because of negligence of the petitioner the petitioner did not prefer any application before the GRT. Negligence cannot be permitted to be covered by believing the version of the petitioner that petitioners were unaware about the pendency of aforesaid litigation and he came to know about pendency of aforesaid litigation only in the year 2018 and after the Circular of the Government relied upon by the learned advocate Mr.Patel was never produced before the GRT and, therefore also at this juncture when the record is established that it is only because of the negligence of the petitioner he has not made any application before the GRT at that relevant point of time, such action cannot be condoned by permitting the petitioner to have one more chance at the cost of other litigants more particularly when the order passed by the ‘SSRD’ in revision application being Revision Application No.MVV/ HKP/VDD/ 13 / 13 which was also rejected by the SSRD vide order dated 10.07.2017 and as it seems from the record that petitioners have not challenged the aforesaid order also before any of the authority, or before this Court by initiating appropriate proceedings, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. After the above order is pronounced dismissing the petition, learned advocate Mr.Patel made a request that if some reasonable cost is imposed upon the petitioner and petitioner may once again be relegated to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal for agitating the cause afresh, in that case, interest of justice would be served. 8. In view of the reasons recorded while dismissing the petition, request made by learned advocate Mr.Patel is rejected.