JUDGMENT : (Sunita Agarwal, CJ.) : ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4172 of 2024 The delay of eight days in filing the instant appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The Delay Condonation Application is hereby allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Office shall allot regular number to the appeal. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4182 of 2024 The delay of nine days in filing the instant appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The Delay Condonation Application is hereby allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Office shall allot regular number to the appeal. COMMON ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1353/2024 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1355 OF 2024 1. Both the above noted appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. They have been heard together and have been decided by this common judgment and order. 2. Heard Mr Anshin Desai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Sudhanshu Jha, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 3. The instant appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the challenge to the Order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Review Application No. Review/CA/28/2015 and the Revisional Order dated 06.07.2015 passed in Revision Application No.19 of 2001 has been turned down. 4. It is vehemently argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/original petitioner that both the Revisional Orders dated 06.07.2015 and the Order passed in the Review Application dated 14.12.2022 have seriously prejudiced the petitioners, inasmuch as, with the adjudication in a proceedings against the third party namely a person, whose name was shown as tenant in the land in question, mistakenly, the rights of the petitioners to the land in question had been affected. 5. It was repeatedly argued that the petitioners were required to file application for review for the reason that a third party, who had no concern with the land in question, had been declared as tenant of the land in question, though, the petitioners are still in possession of the land in question. It was further submitted that however the said third party had lost in the subsequent proceedings before the Tribunal. 6. It was further submitted that however the said third party had lost in the subsequent proceedings before the Tribunal. 6. Be that as it may, the facts, which are sought to be placed before us are an effort to create a confusion or complicate the simple issue, which was before the learned Single Judge about the right of the petitioners to seek a writ of declaration directing the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar to re-decide the price of the purchase of the land in question pursuant to the order of the Mamlatdar in Ganot Case No.738 of 1985 by the father of the petitioners. In essence, the petitioners sought a declaration of their right with respect to the property in question through their father, who was initially declared as tenant of the land in question. 7. The crux of the matter is that with respect to four survey numbers, which are subject matter of dispute herein, initially in the year 1957, father of the petitioners was in possession and was declared as tenant and relevant review entries were mutated to that effect in the year 1966. However, on account of non-payment of the purchase price, the purchase of the land in question namely Survey No.667, 807/1 and 807/2 and 809 were declared ineffective vide Order dated 08.10.1976. According to the petitioners, inspite of the said fact, the possession of the land in question remained with the father of the petitioners. 8. Be that as it may, a Government Resolution dated 21.12.1983 was published, whereunder, those tenants, who could not pay the purchase price of the land earlier had been given one more opportunity to pay the purchase price within the time prescribed therein. The last date for submitting the application under the Government Resolution dated 21.12.1983, as noted by the learned Single Judge, was 31.12.1986. It seems that vide Order dated 04.02.1986, purchase price was also fixed by the Mamlatdar and vide Order dated 10.06.1986, land bearing Survey No.809 was recorded in the name of the father of the petitioners, as according to the petitioners, purchase price was paid. In the year 1987, it seems that with respect to Survey No.807/1 as well some order was passed in favour of the father of the petitioners and accordingly, entry was also mutated in the Revenue Records and certified by the Competent Authority. 9. In the year 1987, it seems that with respect to Survey No.807/1 as well some order was passed in favour of the father of the petitioners and accordingly, entry was also mutated in the Revenue Records and certified by the Competent Authority. 9. However, the fact remains that vide Order dated 10.12.1990, in a suo motu revision by the Deputy Collector, the order dated 17.01.1986 in favour of the petitioners was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar and ALT under Section 32 PPP for carrying out inquiry. The remand proceedings were de-registered vide Order dated 31.05.1993 by the Mamlatdar and ALT on the ground that pursuant to the Order dated 01.06.1964 making the purchase of the land ineffective, the landlord of the land carried that order further and the litigation was pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 10. The fact remains that the Order dated 31.05.1993 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT for de-registering the remand proceedings and the Order dated 10.12.1990 passed by the Deputy Collector in suo motu revision in cancelling the purchase order passed in favour of the father of the petitioners had never been challenged. On a query made by the Court, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the father of the petitioners had died on 03.04.2007. 11. In so far as the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 06.07.2015 in Revision Application No.18 of 2001 is concerned, suffice it to note that the said orders were passed in a different proceedings, which were initiated by the landlord challenging the Order dated 11.04.1962 by way of Tenancy Appeal SR/128/1992. In the said proceedings, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, namely their father was not party. The said appeal was rejected by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (Appeal), Gandhinagar vide Order dated 06.02.1993 and the legal heirs of the landlord had challenged the said order by way of Tenancy Appeal No. Ten/PA/358/1997. The matter was taken further before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in a revision application, which was dismissed as abated vide Order dated 25.12.1998 on account of the death of the revisionist – landlord. 12. The matter was taken further before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in a revision application, which was dismissed as abated vide Order dated 25.12.1998 on account of the death of the revisionist – landlord. 12. It seems that after abatement of the revision Application filed by the revisionist – landlord on account of his death, the petitioners herein preferred the application in the year 2000 seeking to challenge the orders dated 06.02.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (Appeals), Gandhinagar as also the order of abatement dated 25.12.1998 passed by the Tribunal in abatement of the revision filed by the landlord, which application has been dismissed vide Order dated 06.07.2015. Review Application was, thereafter, filed, which has also been dismissed vide Order dated 14.12.2022. 13. On the basis of the above noted two applications filed before the Tribunal in the revision, which has been dismissed as abated on 25.12.1998, the petitioners herein are seeking to revive a dead wood, on the premise that the order of abatement of revision filed by the landlord would come in the way of the petitioners, inasmuch as, right of a third party has been declared in the land in question as tenant though the petitioners had remained in physical possession of the land in question over the period of years. 14. It was vehemently sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the name of father of the petitioners had been mutated in the Revenue Records and it remained as such for years together and since the land in question is in possession of the petitioners after the death of their father, the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in dismissing the revision, as abated, passed on 25.12.1998, operates to the prejudice of the petitioner. 15. All these submissions are found wholly misconceived for the simple reason that the right of the father of the petitioner to retain the possession of the land in question had been extinguished with the passing of the Order dated 08.10.1976, whereby the sale was made ineffective, as the father of the petitioner did not pay the purchase price of the land in question. The said order was never challenged during the life time of father of the petitioners. The said order was never challenged during the life time of father of the petitioners. Further, after publication of the Government Resolution dated 21.12.1983, it seems that some order was passed in favour of the father of the petitioner on 17.01.1986, which had further been set aside by the Deputy Collector in a suo motu revision vide Order dated 10.12.1990. By the said order, the matter was though remanded back to the Mamlatdar and ALT in making inquiry under Section 32 PPP, but the remand proceedings were deregistered vide order dated 31.05.1993 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, in view of the litigation pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. This order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 10.02.1990 or the order dated 31.05.1993 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar had never been challenged. 16. It is categorically recorded by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners have not been able to establish that the purchase price of the land in question had been paid pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 21.12.1983. The assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner had paid the purchase price pursuant to the Government Resolution of the year 1983 with respect to all five parcels of land and only formality remained at the relevant point of time could not be substantiated by bringing any cogent material on record. 17. In conclusion, with the extinction of the right of the father of the petitioners in the year 1976 on account of non-payment of the purchase price, it is not possible for the Court to revive the dead claim of the petitioners with respect to their rights into the land in question. All subsequent proceedings drawn by the petitioners by filing application for revival of the abated revision was an effort to revive a dead wood and to complicate the issues so as to get some order one way or the other, so as to take the matter further. 18. For the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners had already lost their rights into the land in question with the extinction of the right of the predecessor in interest against whom the order dated 08.10.1976 was passed. No error, therefore, can be found in the decision of the learned Single Judge. No error, therefore, can be found in the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeals are dismissed as misconceived. No order as to costs. 19. All connected Civil Applications, filed in the instant appeals, stand disposed of.