JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar along with Mr. Amogh Karandikar and Mr. Shubham Jawlekar, Advocates for the petitioners; Mr. Vaibhav Kadam, Advocate for respondent Nos.3, 8E, 9 and 10 and Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for respondent Nos.11A to 11C. 2. By the present petition filed under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Minister for Revenue, State of Maharashtra in revision proceedings under the provisions of Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1996, (for short “the MLR Code”), dismissing the Revision Application filed by petitioners in respect of mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010 pertaining to Gat No.54 admeasuring 08 Hectares 87 Ares of village Khairgavan, Tal. Yeola, Dist. Nashik. Mutation entry No.508 was certified on 17.10.2010 in the names of the petitioners i.e. four brothers namely, Balkrishna, Gopalkrishna, Vishwanath and Dattatraya. The fifth brother namely Ramkrishna had waived of his right/share in Gat No.54 in lieu of getting sole right in Gat No.59 following family partition. Therefore, after following due process of law as contemplated under the MLR Code, Prabhakar and Ramkrishna's name was not certified in the mutation entry. The legal heirs of deceased Ramkrishna and Prabhakar however filed revenue proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yeola (for short “SDO”) i.e. appeal to challenge mutation entry No.508 in the year 2013. These proceedings culminated in the passing of the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2017 by the State of Maharashtra in revisions proceedings against the petitioners. 3. To appreciate the lis between the parties it will be apposite to briefly refer to the relevant facts for consideration. 3.1. Ancestral land of Thakur family originally belonged to six brothers namely; Ramkrishna, Prabhakar, Dattatraya, Balkrishna, Gopalkrishna and Vishwanath, sons of Sadashiv Thakur. Legal heirs of deceased Ramkrishna Sadashiv Thakur filed Civil Suit being RCS No.187 of 1985 for injunction and declaration of title to the ancestral land. This civil suit came to be dismissed after recording evidence by the Civil Judge, Junior Division on 08.09.2003. Being aggrieved the legal heirs of Ramkrishna filed appeal being Civil Appeal No.74 of 2003 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Niphad at Niphad. This civil suit came to be dismissed after recording evidence by the Civil Judge, Junior Division on 08.09.2003. Being aggrieved the legal heirs of Ramkrishna filed appeal being Civil Appeal No.74 of 2003 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Niphad at Niphad. On 15.07.2008 all parties in the civil appeal entered into a compromise and consent terms were filed wherein entitlement to Gat No.59 was exclusively given to the legal heirs of deceased Ramkrishna Sadashiv Thakur by the respondents i.e. other brothers therein. 3.2. Petitioners have asserted that prior to 1985 there was an oral partition of ancestral property between the brothers wherein Prabhakar Sadashiv Thakur and Ramkrishna Sadashiv Thakur were not given any right, title and interest in Gat No.54, but in lieu thereof Ramkrishna Sadashiv Thakur was given the entire right, titile and interest in Gat No.59. Prabhakar Sadashiv Thakur, the sixth brother, however, has maintained challenge to the mutation entry right from inception. 3.3. Sometime in the year 2008 petitioners filed application for mutation and recording their names in the revenue record in respect of Gat No.54. Prabhakar Sadashiv Thakur and legal heirs of deceased Ramkrishna Sadashiv Thakur i.e. respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 endorsed the said application by specifically giving their no objection to the recording of the names of the petitioners against Gat No.54. 3.4. In January 2010 statutory notice under the provisions of the MLR Code was issued to the parties and affixed at the Chavadi fixing the date of hearing on 20.01.2010 and calling for objections if any. Respondents recorded their "no objection" in writing for mutating the names of petitioners before the Tahsildar on 20.01.2010, 07.04.2010 and 23.10.2010. 3.5. In April 2010 the Tahsildar passed order under the provisions of Section 85 of the MLR Code after conducting the statutory inquiry and recorded the arrangement between the brothers and certified that the names of petitioners i.e. four brothers be entered in the revenue record against Gat No.54 and gave further directions for issuance of Form 12 and making entry under the provisions of Section 149 read with section 150 of the MLR Code. On the basis of this order passed under Section 85 of the MLR Code. Accordingly mutation entry No.508 came to be certified on 17.05.2010 in the names of the petitioners. The names of the petitioners was entered into the revenue record. 3.6. On the basis of this order passed under Section 85 of the MLR Code. Accordingly mutation entry No.508 came to be certified on 17.05.2010 in the names of the petitioners. The names of the petitioners was entered into the revenue record. 3.6. On 02.09.2013 respondent Nos.1, 2, 9 and 10 filed statutory R.T.S. appeal challenging the certification of the aforesaid mutation entry No.508 dated 17.05.2010 before the SDO, Yeola under the provisions of Section 247 of the MLR Code. The limitation for filing statutory appeal as prescribed under Section 250 of the MLR Code is 60 days. No application seeking condonation of delay to file the appeal for more than 3 years and 2 months was filed by the respondents. The memorandum of appeal also was devoid of any pleading and prayer seeking condonation of delay of 3 years and 2 months in filing the appeal. 3.7. On 31.01.2014 petitioners (being respondents therein) filed affidavit-in-reply in the appeal proceedings and raised preliminary issue of maintainability of the appeal on the ground of gross delay in filing the appeal and that too without any application seeking condonation of delay and therefore sought dismissal of the appeal. Preliminary issue raised by petitioners was not consider, but on 03.03.2014 the appeal was heard and dismissed on merits, inter alia, holding that the R.T.S. appeal was not filed within time. 3.8. On 29.04.2014 only 3 respondents i.e. respondents Nos.1, 2 and 10 namely; Prabhakar, Sumati and Lilavati being aggrieved filed statutory first appeal before the Additional Collector being RTS Appeal No.104 of 2014 to challenge the order dated 03.03.2014. 3.9. On 05.08.2014 respondent No.1 filed a letter through his Advocate before the Additional Collector, inter alia, stating that he has no objection in respect of mutation entry No.508 pertaining to Gat No.54 in the names of his four brothers. Written submissions were filed by the petitioners to challenge the appeal on the ground that the appellants therein had not filed any application seeking condonation of delay before the SDO in the first instance; as such maintainability of the original application/appeal was barred by limitation. 3.10. On 09.04.2015 the Additional Collector allowed the appeal and directed cancellation of mutation entry No.508. 3.11. Petitioners being aggrieved filed statutory second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik under the provisions of Section 257 of the MLR Code. 3.10. On 09.04.2015 the Additional Collector allowed the appeal and directed cancellation of mutation entry No.508. 3.11. Petitioners being aggrieved filed statutory second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik under the provisions of Section 257 of the MLR Code. On 21.03.2017 appeal filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed by upholding the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 09.04.2015. 3.12. Petitioners being aggrieved filed Revision Application under the provisions of Section 257 of the MLR Code before the State Government of Maharashtra. On 05.10.2017 the State Government of Maharashtra dismissed the Revision Application of petitioners and confirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector and Divisional Commissioner of cancellation of mutation entry No.508. 3.13. Being aggrieved, present petition is filed to challenge the order dated 05.10.2017. 4. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the principal grievance raised in the petition is that the respondents did not file application for seeking condonation of delay of 3 years and 2 months in filing the appeal on 02.09.2013 to challenge mutation entry No.508 pertaining to Gat No.54; respondent’s appeal memo did not have any pleading and or relief/prayer for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal; appeal was clearly time barred; unless the delay was condoned, the Court would not get jurisdiction to decide on the merits of the case and therefore there was a fundamental jurisdictional error in as much as the order dated 03.03.2014 though decided on merits was fundamentally void and non-est. SDO, Yeola clearly acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal of respondents which was barred, that too without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore the order dated 03.03.2014 passed by the SDO was without jurisdiction, nullity and its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced and relied upon, even at the stage of execution or appeal proceedings. 4.1. He submitted that mutation entry No.508 was passed on 07.05.2010 after following the due process of law and the names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue record after inquiry. 4.2. After a lapse of more than three years, some of the respondents challenged the mutation entry before the SDO. The said proceeding was preferred by respondent Nos.1, 2, 9 and 10 only. The said applicants did not file any application for seeking condonation of delay of more than 3 years. 4.2. After a lapse of more than three years, some of the respondents challenged the mutation entry before the SDO. The said proceeding was preferred by respondent Nos.1, 2, 9 and 10 only. The said applicants did not file any application for seeking condonation of delay of more than 3 years. The memorandum of appeal is filed in the present petition. Without prejudice to the contention of the petitioners that a separate application for condonation of delay is required and that unless the delay is condoned the Authority did not get jurisdiction to decide the appeal; perusal of the prayer clauses of the appeal memo shows that no prayer for seeking condonation of delay was made further the date of knowledge is left blank; the roznama of hearings conducted before the SDO shows that no application for condonation of delay was filed; therefore trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the challenge on merits without condoning the delay. 4.3. Petitioners by their application dated 31.01.2014 prayed for framing a preliminary issue of limitation as to “whether the challenge was maintainable without condonation of delay application or similar prayer therein”; admittedly the appeal was filed without preferring application for condonation of delay or even a prayer for seeking condonation of delay; appeal being filed on 02.09.2013, as such the appeal was beyond limitation; the delay was not condoned. 4.4. SDO by order dated 03.02.2014 dismissed the appeal on merits recording petitioners’ challenge in the order that application for setting aside mutation entry was beyond limitation. The respondents were given notice to appear before the SDO and had personally appeared and given their No objection statements. After hearing the arguments, the SDO held that “No objection to enter the petitioners’ names in respect of Gat No.54” were given before the Tahsildar while conducting the statutory inquiry and hence, there was no merit in the contention of the respondents (appellants therein). However, no observation was made on the issue of limitation. 4.5. Thereafter respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 10 filed statutory appeal challenging the order of the SDO. During the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No.1 i.e. Prabhakar filed application on 05.08.2014 accepting the order/mutation entry No. 508 of the Tahsildar and praying that partition as prayed for in the application be effected. 4.5. Thereafter respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 10 filed statutory appeal challenging the order of the SDO. During the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No.1 i.e. Prabhakar filed application on 05.08.2014 accepting the order/mutation entry No. 508 of the Tahsildar and praying that partition as prayed for in the application be effected. He also submitted that he was not interested in prosecuting the appeal and that there was no dispute between the parties. 4.6. Petitioners filed their reply, wherein a specific stand taken was that the parties had already accepted the partition and that the original challenge before the SDO was beyond limitation; it was contended that wife of deceased Ramkrishna did not have right to file appeal as suit for partition was originally filed by her husband i.e. Ramkrishna and she had filed consent terms being legal heir of Ramkrishna on the basis of which partition came to be effected; all respondents were parties to the civil appeal wherein consent terms were filed and the parties were bound by such consent terms. Petitioners urged that challenge in the first instance before the SDO which was the basis of the appeal before the Additional Collector was not maintainable in the absence of application seeking condonation of delay and without delay being condoned, the SDO did not have jurisdiction to pass any order on merits. 4.7. Additional District Collector passed order dated 09.04.2015 and allowed the appeal of respondents. The Additional District Collector recorded the submissions of the parties but ignored the contention as regards delay/limitation. 4.8. Petitioners filed revision application before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Divison being RTS/Revision/159/2015. Petitioners submitted that the original challenge before the SDO was itself beyond limitation; however Divisional Commissioner did not consider the submission of limitation and condonation of delay; basic issue of jurisdiction remained to be addressed. Divisional Commissioner rejected the revision application of petitioners. 4.9. Petitioners thereafter filed second revision under section 257 of the MLR Code before the Minister of Revenue, State of Maharashtra. In the second revision, petitioners, inter alia, raised the issue of limitation in the first instance and submitted that since the original challenge to mutation entry No.508 before the SDO was filed beyond limitation, the same was liable to be dismissed as delay was not condoned. In the second revision, petitioners, inter alia, raised the issue of limitation in the first instance and submitted that since the original challenge to mutation entry No.508 before the SDO was filed beyond limitation, the same was liable to be dismissed as delay was not condoned. The Minister of Revenue, State of Maharashtra, however by order dated 05.10.2017 rejected the petitioners’ second revision application and confirmed the order passed by the Additional Commissioner directing cancellation of mutation entry No.508. 4.10. It was asserted that, it is settled position in law that Appellate Court would assume jurisdiction only if delay in filing the appeal was condoned in the first place. Unless and until the delay is condoned no jurisdiction would accrue to the Appellate Court. The delay can be condoned only if such a prayer is formally made by the appellant. The Court on its own cannot find out some reason to grant the relief which is not prayed for by the applicants. Hence the order dated 03.02.2014 of SDO itself was a nullity and therefore all subsequent orders passed thereafter are void, non-est and not-binding. 5. PER CONTRA, Mr. Vaibhav Kadam appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2E, 8 and 10 submitted as under:- 5.1. Gat No.54 is situated at Khairgavhan, Tal. Yeola, Dist. Nashik and was owned by late Sadashiv Vishwanath Thakur. Sadashiv Vishwanath Thakur expired in 1994 leaving behind six sons and three daughters as his legal heirs. Petitioners filed application for partition before the Tahsildar, Tal. Yeola under Section 85 of the MLR Code where the respondents were not present and moreover, respondent Nos.2 to 10 have neither given any kind of signature nor relinquished their rights in any one’s favor till date. 5.2. Procedure contemplated under Section 85 of the MLR Code in respect of mutation entry No.508 was not carried out as per the law laid down in Section 85 of the MLR code. All parties in respect of Gat No.54 were not present at the time of the said proceedings when the consent and the signatures were obtained and this fact is considered by the Additional District Collector, Nashik in his order and judgment dated 09.04.2015. 5.3. By virtue of mutation entry No.508, names of the respondents are removed from the 7/12 extract of Gat No.54 and therefore respondents are deprived of their share in the property. 5.4. 5.3. By virtue of mutation entry No.508, names of the respondents are removed from the 7/12 extract of Gat No.54 and therefore respondents are deprived of their share in the property. 5.4. Respondents have never relinquished their legal right in Gat No.54 in any one’s interest and never registered or executed any relinquish deed. 5.5. Proceedings under Section 85 of the MLR Code before the Tahsildar Yeola were conducted in the absence of the respondents and the signatures on the documents i.e. NOCs’ submitted were forged and fabricated. The said order and mutation entry No.508 was quashed and set aside vide the order dated 09.04.2015 by the Additional District Collector Nashik considering the proper law point. 5.6. Respondents have neither received any kind of notice nor given any kind of signatures on any document and the learned Tahsildar Yeola has not followed the due process of law as prescribed under Section 85 of the MLR Code. 6. Mr. Rayrikar, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the State made submissions to defend the impugned order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Minister of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra. 7. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. Material on record has been perused. 8. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it will be apposite to briefly refer to the statutory provisions. 9. Chapter XIII of the MLR Code deals with Appeals, Revision and Review. Section 247 relates to appeal and Appellate Authorities and states that an appeal shall lie from any decision or order passed by a revenue or survey officer specified in column 1 of Schedule E under this Code or any other law for the time being in force to the officer specified in column 2 of Schedule E whether or not such decision or order may itself have been passed on appeal from the decision or order of the officer specified in column 1 of the Schedule. 9.1. 9.1. Section 248 relates to appeal to the State Government and states that an appeal shall lie to the State Government from any decision or order passed by a Commissioner or by a Director of Land Records, or by a Deputy Director of Land Records invested with powers of Director of Land Records, except in the case of any decision or order passed by such officer on appeal from a decision or order itself recorded in appeal by any officer subordinate to him. 9.2. Section 250 deals with periods within which appeals must be brought i.e. limitation. It is states that no appeal shall be brought after the expiration of sixty days if the decision or order complained of has been passed by an officer inferior in rank to a Collector or a Superintendent of Land Records in their respective departments; nor after the expiration of ninety days in any other case. The period of sixty and ninety days shall be counted from the date on which the decision or order is received by the appellant. In computing the above periods, the time required to obtain a copy of the decision or order appealed against shall be excluded. 9.3. Section 257 deals with the power of State Government and of certain revenue and survey officers to call for and examine records and proceedings of subordinate officers. 9.4. Section 258 relates to review of orders. It states that the State Government and every revenue or survey officer may, either on its or his own motion or on the application of any party interested, review any order passed by itself or himself or any of its or his predecessors in office and pass such orders in reference thereto as it or he thinks fit. 10. In the present case, this Court is concerned with the applicability of the provisions of Section 247 read with Section 250 of the MLR Code in the facts of the present case. 10. In the present case, this Court is concerned with the applicability of the provisions of Section 247 read with Section 250 of the MLR Code in the facts of the present case. From the pleadings and record of the case placed before me, it can be seen that, it has been consistently submitted by the petitioners at all stages beginning with the proceedings before the SDO that the proceeding filed by respondents to challenge mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010 was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation i.e. after a lapse of 3 years and 2 months and therefore not maintainable because the same was neither accompanied by any formal application for seeking condonation of delay nor a formal prayer was made seeking condonation of delay in the proceedings nor the Appellate Authority i.e. SDO in the first instance has passed any order condoning the delay in filing the appeal, before entering upon the merits of the lis between the parties. 10.1. On a thorough perusal of the pleadings it is discernible that it has been the consistent stand of the petitioners at every stage of the proceedings that the course adopted by the SDO to decide the challenge on merits lacked jurisdiction and was not permissible in law and for this reason the decision of the SDO was a nullity and was therefore required to be set aside. This issue has not been considered by the Additional Collector, Divisional Commissioner and the State Government in all subsequent proceedings. 11. Apart from the issue on merits, petitioners have asserted that in the absence of any application seeking condonation of delay to maintain the challenge to mutation entry No.508, the entire proceedings was vitiated; it was incumbent upon respondents to file application seeking condonation of delay beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 250 of the MLR Code as the prescribed period of 60 days had lapsed more than three years ago. This admittedly having not been done by the respondents, the SDO could not have the jurisdiction to pass a decision on merits unless and until the delay was condoned. 12. From the above it can be deduced that admittedly there was a substantial delay on the part of respondents to file the application for setting aside mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010. 12. From the above it can be deduced that admittedly there was a substantial delay on the part of respondents to file the application for setting aside mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010. Further the statutory appeal before the SDO was admittedly not accompanied by application/plea for seeking condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. This being the admitted position, the SDO in the first instance did not get jurisdiction to consider the grievance of the respondents on merits without condoning the delay. Orders passed by the SDO and the appellate/revisional authorities thereafter are therefore nullity. 13. Petitioners have placed reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke vs. Shaikh Hamaja Shaikh Husen (2000 Vol. 102 (3) Bom. L.R. 563), in Writ Petition No. 3246 of 1987 decided on 20.07.2000, wherein a similar issue had arisen. In that case neither the Appellate Court nor the Tribunal had examined the question of delay although it was vehemently raised on behalf of the petitioner therein particularly when there was no formal application or formal order condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The learned Single Judge held that the Appellate Court acted without jurisdiction in deciding the appeal on merits without first condoning the delay; unless the delay was condoned, the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in law. The relevant paragraph Nos.11 to 14 of the said judgment are extracted as under : “11. The view which I have been taken has already been considered by different Benches of this Court. In the case of Narhar Shamrao Deshpande Vs Lakhu Raghu Dalvi, (Since deceased) through his heirs, Yeshwant Laxman and Anr. ( 1984(1) Bom.C.R. 14 ), Justice R.D. Tulpule, as he then was, has dealt with similar contention and has rejected the same. In my view the said decision would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In another decision in Madhavdas Damodardas Gujar and Ors. Vs Mahadu Kern Raut ( 1994(1) Bom.C.R. 509 : 1995 A.I.H.C. 486), following the aforesaid decision of Justice Tulpule, this Court has reiterated the said legal position. In my view the said decision would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In another decision in Madhavdas Damodardas Gujar and Ors. Vs Mahadu Kern Raut ( 1994(1) Bom.C.R. 509 : 1995 A.I.H.C. 486), following the aforesaid decision of Justice Tulpule, this Court has reiterated the said legal position. Another decision of Justice R.M. Lodha reported in 1998 (4) All M.R. 419 has also held that the appeal filed against an order which is alleged to be null and void needs to be filed within limitation or at least sufficient cause should be shown for condoning the delay. There is one more decision of this Court which has considered this question and answered the same against the Respondent reported in 1999(3) Mh.L.J. 598 of Justice D.G. Deshpande. In view of the consistent view taken by this Court, it is not open for me to take a different view and particularly because of the decision of the Apex Court referred to above. In the present case we have already noticed that neither the Appellate Court nor the Tribunal has examined the question of delay although vehemently raised on behalf of the petitioner, particularly when there was no formal application or formal order condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In other words, the Appellate Court acted without jurisdiction in deciding the appeal on merits without jurisdiction in deciding the appeal on merits without first condoning the delay. Unless the delay was condoned, the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in law. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the Appellate Court clearly acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal which was barred by 20 years. That too, without condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. The learned Counsel for the Respondent during the course of argument submitted that since neither the Appellate Court nor the Tribunal has given any reason with regard to the preliminary objection on the point of limitation, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Lower Court to consider the same in accordance with law. The learned Counsel for the Respondent during the course of argument submitted that since neither the Appellate Court nor the Tribunal has given any reason with regard to the preliminary objection on the point of limitation, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Lower Court to consider the same in accordance with law. In my view, such a course would cause manifest injustice to the Petitioner inasmuch as 32G proceedings has been concluded on 15.7.1963, on the basis that the Petitioner has become deemed purchaser on 14.1.1957; and yet the petitioner has been driven from one Court to another during all these period. It was, therefore, suggested to the learned Counsel for the Respondent that instead an affidavit of the Respondent be filed before this Court to explain the cause for delay of 20 years in filing of the appeal before the Assistant Collector. Pursuant to the said liberty, the Respondent has filed affidavit in this Court and the only the defence or explanation offered reads as under:- "I say that I have repeatedly visited the office of the Tahsildar and Deputy Collector, in order to find out when proceedings under Section 88C will commence, but I could not get satisfactory reply from the office of the concerned authority. I therefore, after waiting for a considerable time filed Tenancy appeal. I say that the delay in filing the appeal was explained in the Appeal, however, the concerned authority has failed to make reference of it. However, my aforesaid explanation satisfied the concerned authority and that is why the appeal was entertained and allowed." (Emphasis supplied) 13. This cannot be said to be an explanation at all, leave alone that it is satisfactory or would stand the test of sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In the circumstances. I have no option but to conclude that the appeal filed by the Respondent before the Assistant Collector was hopelessly time barred and ought to have been dismissed at the threshold by the Appellate Court. In other words, the Appellate Court has clearly acted without jurisdiction in addressing itself to the issues on merits, when it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as presented by the Respondent. In other words, the Appellate Court has clearly acted without jurisdiction in addressing itself to the issues on merits, when it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as presented by the Respondent. What is important to note is that pursuant to the order passed in Section 32G proceedings on 15.7.1963 the Petitioner not only paid purchase price but the authorities have also issued certificate in favour of the Petitioner under Section 32M coupled with the fact that mutation entries have been recorded in the village record as back as in the year 1966. For all these years till May, 1983 the Respondent did not think it proper to challenge the said decision. This would also mean that the Respondent had waived his right to challenge the said order by filing appeal within the prescribed time and was therefore disentitled for any indulgence. I have already observed that even on merits the stand taken by the Respondent is wholly untenable. In the circumstances the Appellate Court as well as the Tribunal were completely in error in accepting the stand taken by the Respondent. Accordingly the order passed by the Appellate Court as well as the Tribunal which is under challenge in this writ petition deserves to be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Mamalatdar and A.L.T. Indapur dated 15.7.1963 in Section 32G proceedings is restored. 14. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed with costs all throughout. Rule is made absolute. The order passed by the Assistant Collector, Baramati Division, Baramati dated 28.2.1985 in TNC Appeal No. 36 of 1983 and the order passed by the M.R.T., Pune dated 12.8.1996 in Revision No. 7 of 1985 are quashed and set aside and instead the order passed by the Mamalatdar and A.L.T. Indapur dated 15.7.1963 is restored.” 14. Petitioners have also referred to another decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sidappa Rama Patil vs. Sattur Laxman Kole and others (2005 (2) Bom C.R. 419) in Writ Petition No.2963 of 1982 decided on 23.06.2004, wherein it has been held that if the appeal in revenue proceedings is barred by limitation, the Appellate Court would assume jurisdiction only if delay in filing such appeal was condoned in the first place. In this case, the appeal was filed after more than 10 years and was not accompanied by any formal application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal nor such prayer was made in the memo of appeal. Further in the said case there was nothing on record to show that the Appellate Authority had condoned the delay in filing the said appeal before entertaining the same on merits. The learned Single Judge, in view of the aforementioned questions held that the appeal in such a case was barred by limitation. The facts of this case are similar to the present case in hand. 15. In view of the above settled legal position and the particular facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that respondents have not filed the application for seeking condonation of delay to file statutory appeal to challenge mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010. In that view of the matter, it is settled that any order passed by the Court/Authority would be without jurisdiction and nullity. It is important to note that the petitioners have consistently from inception in all their pleadings maintained this ground. In the present case neither the Appellate authorities nor the Revisional Authorities have examined the question of delay though it has been consistently raised by the petitioners, particularly when there was no application or order condoning the delay in the proceedings in the first instance. Therefore, in other words the appellate authorities and the revisional authorities have acted without jurisdiction in deciding the proceedings on merits and without first condoning the delay. Unless the delay was condoned appellate authorities and the revisional authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in law. 16. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the decisions of this Court referred to hereinabove, I am of the view that the order dated 03.03.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yeola in RTS Appeal No.181 of 2013 suffered from an inherent jurisdictional error as the same came to be passed without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Thus the said order suffered from lack of jurisdiction and is required to be set aside as nullity and non-est. Thus the said order suffered from lack of jurisdiction and is required to be set aside as nullity and non-est. In view of this finding the further orders passed by the appellate authorities i.e. the Additional District Collector, Nashik and revisional authorities i.e. Divisional Commissioner and the Minister of Revenue, State of Maharashtra also suffer from a jurisdictional error and all the authorities have clearly erred in the entertaining the challenge to mutation entry No.508 dated 17.10.2010 without condoning the delay in filing the statutory appeal which is a fundamental requirement under the provisions of the MLR Code. Without condoning the delay in filing of the statutory appeal, the appellate authorities and the revisional authorities have clearly acted without jurisdiction. Appellate authorities have not given any reason with regard to the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners on the point of limitation. In the circumstances, the appellate and revisional authorities were in error in accepting the stand taken by the respondents on merits without condoning the delay. 17. In view of the above discussion and findings, the orders passed by the appellate/revisional authorities need to be interfered with. Accordingly, the following orders are quashed and set aside:- (i) Order dated 03.03.2014 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Yeola in RTS Appeal No.181 of 2013; (ii) Order dated 09.04.2015 passed by Additional District Collector, Nashik in RTS Appeal No.104 of 2014; (iii) Order dated 21.03.2017 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in RTS Review No.169 of 2015; (iv) Order dated 05.10.2017 passed by Minister of Revenue, State of Maharashtra in RTS No.3017/3039/p`.k`.154/ja.- 6. 18. Writ petition stands disposed in terms of the above directions. However, there shall be no order as to costs.