JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.1.2023 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) in Revision Application No. AMD/296/22 (for short “the revision application”). 2. By the impugned order the Tribunal has admitted the Revision Application filed by the Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14.7.2022 passed by the Deputy Collector under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code 1879 (for short “the Code”). 3. The Tribunal on receipt of the revision application filed by Respondent No. 1 issued notice dated 30.8.2022 calling upon the petitioners for preliminary hearing of the revision application. 4. The petitioners in response to such notice filed objection against admission of the revision application. 5. After hearing the learned Advocates of the petitioners and Respondent No. 1 and after considering that the revision application is filed within the period of limitation, the Tribunal ordered to admit the revision application under Section 76 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act 1948 (for short “the Gujarat Tenancy Act”). 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Jani appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Tattvam K. Patel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal has failed to hold that the revision application was required to be rejected considering the objections raised by the petitioners on merits, on law as well as on procedure which were tendered before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the Tribunal has not recorded any reason for admitting the revision application. 7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Jani has placed reliance upon Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Lands (Bombay Revenue Tribunal Procedure) Rules, 1958 (for short “the Bombay Tenancy Rules”) which are applicable for the purpose of regulating the procedure to hear matters filed before the Tribunal. 8. It was submitted that as per sub Rule (3) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules, the Tribunal may for the sufficient reasons admit or reject the application. 9. Reference was made to sub Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules to point out that the Tribunal is required to issue notice of preliminary hearing to the applicants or to duly appointed agent or lawyer after the application has been registered. 9. Reference was made to sub Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules to point out that the Tribunal is required to issue notice of preliminary hearing to the applicants or to duly appointed agent or lawyer after the application has been registered. It was also pointed out that after the issuance of notice under sub Rule (1) if the applicant does not appear before the Tribunal either in person or through agent or lawyer on the date mentioned in the notice, the application is required to be heard and decided ex parte. It was pointed out that as per the proviso to sub Rule (3) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules no application shall be rejected without giving reasons in writing for doing so. 10. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Jani has also referred to sub Rule (4) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules empowering the Tribunal to call for the record and proceedings of the case. 11. It was therefore submitted that in view of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules, the Tribunal ought to have given the reasons for admission of the revision application under Section 76 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act. 12. It was submitted that the petitioners have filed exhaustive written submissions raising the objections to the admission of the revision application relying upon the decided cases and pointed out that the Tribunal has very limited jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act. 12.1 It was submitted that when there are concurrent findings, the Tribunal could not have admitted the revision application. 12.2 It was further pointed out that the proceedings under Section 32(1)(b) of the Gujarat Tenancy Act itself were not maintainable and therefore the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners is without jurisdiction and the Tribunal therefore could not have admitted the revision application. 13. Having heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Jani for the petitioners and considering the provisions of Section 76 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act read with Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules, it appears that the Tribunal is not required to give any reasons while admitting the revision application. For this, it would be germane to refer to Section 76 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act as well as Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules which reads as under: “Section 76. For this, it would be germane to refer to Section 76 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act as well as Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules which reads as under: “Section 76. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the [Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957] an application for revision may be made to the [Gujarat Revenue Tribunal] constituted under the said Act against any order of the Collector [except an order under section 32P or an order in appeal against an order under sub-section (4) of section 32G] on the following grounds only: (a) that the order of the Collector was contrary to law. (b) that the Collector failed to determine some material issue of law. (c) that there was a substantial defect in following the procedure provided by this Act [or that there has been failure to take evidence or error in approciating important evidence] which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. (2) In deciding applications under this section the [Gujarat Revenue Tribunal] shall follow the procedure which may be prescribed by rules made under this Act after consultation with the [Gujarat Revenue Tribunal].” 13.1 Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules provides the procedure for registering the application which reads as under: “13. Procedure on registering application: (1) Where an application has been registered, the Registrar shall, as soon thereafter as possible place it before the Tribunal for preliminary hearing. A notice of preliminary hearing shall be given to the applicant or to his duly appointed agent or lawyer. (2) A notice Under sub-rule (1) shall state that if the applicant does not appear before the Tribunal either in person or through an agent or lawyer on the date mentioned in the notice, the application shall be heard and decided ex-parte. (3) The Tribunal may, for sufficient reasons, admit or reject the application. Provided that no application shall be rejected without giving reason in writing for doing so. (4) For the purpose of making an order under sub-rule (3), the Tribunal may direct the Registrar to call for the record and proceedings relating to the application under consideration, or any other papers or documents, from the Collector or the authority concerned: Provided that the record and proceedings shall not be called nor processes issued unless the process fee prescribed under Rule 47 is duly received by the Registrar.” 14. On a careful perusal of Section 76 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act read with Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules, it appears that the Tribunal is having jurisdiction to hear an application for revision against any order of the Collector except an order under Section 32(P) or an order in Appeal against an order under sub Section (4) of Section 32 (G). 15. In view thereof, it would therefore now be necessary to refer to the procedure on registering the application. 15.1 When an application in form of revision was filed by Respondent No. 1 within the prescribed limitation and when such application is registered as per sub Rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules, the Registrar of the Tribunal is required to place such application before the Tribunal for preliminary hearing and notice of preliminary hearing is required to be given only to the Respondent No. 1-applicant before the Tribunal or to his duly appointed agent or lawyer. 15.2 Sub Rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules does not prescribe any procedure for issuance of notice upon the petitioners who are respondents before the Tribunal. Similarly, sub Rule (2) of rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules prescribes that on service of notice of preliminary hearing upon the applicant before the Tribunal, if such applicant does not appear before the Tribunal either in person or through an agent or lawyer on the date mentioned in the notice, the application shall be heard and decided ex parte. Therefore till the stage of sub Rule (1) and (2) the Respondents before the Tribunal i.e. the petitioners herein are not required to be heard at all by the Tribunal. 15.3 Sub Rule (3) provides that the Tribunal after hearing the applicant before it or his duly appointed agent or lawyer for sufficient reasons either may admit or reject the application. Sub Rule (3) does not prescribe for giving any reason for admission of the application submitted by the applicant which is fortified by the proviso to sub Rule (3) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules which provides that no application shall be rejected without giving reasons in writing for doing so. Sub Rule (3) does not prescribe for giving any reason for admission of the application submitted by the applicant which is fortified by the proviso to sub Rule (3) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules which provides that no application shall be rejected without giving reasons in writing for doing so. Meaning thereby that if the Tribunal after giving preliminary hearing to the applicant before it or his duly appointed agent or lawyer comes to the conclusion that the application is not required to be admitted then the same can be rejected after recording the reasons in writing for doing so and for that purpose recourse to sub Rule (4) of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules may be taken by the Tribunal to call for the record and proceedings of the case. Therefore, neither Section 76 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act nor Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules provide at any stage provide for any hearing to the respondents in the revision application filed before the Tribunal. 16. In the facts of the case when the Tribunal has issued the notice of preliminary hearing to all the parties so as to permit the respondents before it – petitioners herein to tender the objections, such procedure adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules and therefore the Tribunal has rightly not considered the objections raised by the petitioners against the admission of the revision application. 17. As per Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules, the Tribunal is required to hear only the applicant before it or its Advocate as per prescribed procedure while deciding as to whether the revision application is required to be admitted or rejected and only if the application is required to be rejected then the reasons in writing are required to be given for rejecting the application. 18. In view of the above provisions of Section 76 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act and the analysis of Rule 13 of the Bombay Tenancy Rules, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal while admitting the revision application filed by the Respondent No. 1. 19. The petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.