JUDGMENT : 1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 4. learned Advocate Mr. D.K. Puj waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1. 2. This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is filed is against the order dated 22-06-2016 passed by the Deputy Collector, City Parnt-Surat in RTS Appeal No.367 of 2014. 3. At the outset, learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that though the petitioners have preferred petition directly before this Court despite their being remedy available to challenge the order before the higher forum. However, as the proceeding are initiated and order is passed beyond period of limitation prescribed, passing of the order by the Deputy Mamlatdar is without jurisdiction. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the issue is pertaining to Mutation Entry No.859 of Revenue Record of Village- Bamroli, which was certified on 26-04-2013. The respondent aggrieved by the Mutation Entry, filed an Appeal on 11-12-2014, which came to be allowed by the impugned order. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that for preferring an Appeal under the provision of Bombay Land Revenue Code, Rule-108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, prescribed limitation of 60 days and as the present Appeal was preferred beyond the period of limitation, it was required to be accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. It is submitted that neither Appeal preferred by the private respondent was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay nor the memo of Appeal contained any cogent reasons for condoning the delay. It is submitted that unless the delay is condoned by separate order, the jurisdiction will not rise for the respondent-the Deputy Mamlatdar to adjudicate and therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. 5. Learned Advocate for the respondent has taken this Court to an Appeal Memo and the proceedings before the Deputy Mamlatdar to contend that no application for condonation of delay has been filed and in fact the petitioners had taken objection with regard to the delay. 6. As against this, there does not appear to be any Affidavit in reply to controvert the contention of the petitioners, however, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has vehemently submitted that the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy and therefore, the petition should be dismissed on the very ground. 6. As against this, there does not appear to be any Affidavit in reply to controvert the contention of the petitioners, however, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has vehemently submitted that the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy and therefore, the petition should be dismissed on the very ground. Learned Advocate has submitted that the Deputy Collector has taken into consideration various factual aspects including the proceedings, which had culminated in Civil Court and therefore, was justified in cancelling Succession Mutation Entry No.859. 7. Learned Advocate for the petitioners in rejoinder has referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Dudhiben Muljibhai Patel and another V/s. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2016) 2 GLR 1786 . The petitioners have also relied upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Ragho Singh v/s. Mohansinh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 717 to emphasis that for condoning of delay, application is must for exercising powers under Section-5 of the Limitation Act. 8. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the issue pertains to Mutation Entry No.859 posted on 07-03-2013 and certified on 26-04-2013 in connection with the land bearing Survey No.118, Block No.177 of Village-Bamroli, Taluka-Surat, which was posted on account of the death of the original owner on 30-03-2012 in favour of the petitioners being their legal heir. It appears that aggrieved by the posting and certification of the aforesaid Entry, private respondent preferred RTS Appeal No.367 of 2014 on 11-12-2014. 9. Considering the relevant provision for preferring an Appeal under the Bombay Land Revenue Code being Section-205/206 read with Rule- 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, period of 60 days is provided for preferring an appeal, proviso to Rule-108(5) provides that the Appellate Authority after recording its reasons in written, may admit an Appeal filed after period of 60 days, if it is satisfied with the cause shown by the Appellant in not presenting Appeal within stipulated period. 10. In the present case, an Appeal was preferred beyond the period of 60 days and therefore, the petitioners herein on 29-01-2015 filed an application objecting to admission of the Appeal on the ground that an Appeal is beyond period of limitation. 11. 10. In the present case, an Appeal was preferred beyond the period of 60 days and therefore, the petitioners herein on 29-01-2015 filed an application objecting to admission of the Appeal on the ground that an Appeal is beyond period of limitation. 11. From the record, it appears that, the aforesaid land being the new tenure land, which was running in the name of Pravinbhai Premabhai Patel and as he died intestate on 30/03/2012, the names of his direct heirs i.e names of us the defendants (1) Dhanuben widow of Pravinbhai Premabhai Patel (2) Hiteshbhai Pravinbhai Patel (3) Shashikantbhai Pravinbhai Patel (4) Sangitaben Pravinbhai Patel were entered in the succession right. The entry of the same was made in the revenue record vide entry No.859 on 07/03/2013 and was verified on 26/04/2013. Then onwards, we the defendants have been the owner, attorney and direct possessor of this land. The present plaintiffs have filed the present appeal challenging the said succession entry No.859. But, the present plaintiff has not right to challenge the said succession entry No.859, because, the present plaintiffs are not the direct heirs of the deceased Pravinbhai Premabhai Patel nor he has any family relation with the present plaintiffs. 12. The Apex Court in decision in case of Ragho Singh (supra) has taken into consideration the similar facts situation, where application for condoning of delay was not filed and without that the Apex Court held that no jurisdiction lied with the Authority to proceed and allow an Appeal. 13. This Court in the decision in case of Dudhiben Muljibhai Patel and another (supra) while addressing the very issue under the very provision, has concluded that entertaining an Appeal beyond the period of limitation without condoning the delay amounted to assumption of jurisdiction, which is not permissible in Law (Para-5.8). 14. In this view of the matter, the impugned order though by the Deputy Collector is without jurisdiction, requires to be interfered with. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22-06-2016 passed by the Deputy Collector, City Parnt-Surat in RTS Appeal No.367 of 2014 is ordered to be quashed and set aside. The petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. 15. In view of the order passed in the main matter, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.