ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged (i) the order dated 28.9.2012 passed by the learned Deputy Collector in RTS Appeal No.88 of 2012, (ii) order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the learned Collector in Revision Application No.72 of 2012 and (iii) order dated 12.6.2015 passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/Dahod/8 of 2014. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to the respondents to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records with respect to the land in question. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sahil M. Shah appearing for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondents No.1 to 5 and learned advocate Mr. K.T. Beladiya appearing for the respondents No.6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4.1, 6.1.4.2, 6.1.4.3, 6.1.4.4, 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.7, 7.2. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition as stated by learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah are as under :- 3.1 That a land bearing old revenue survey No.64 was converted into new survey No.67, admeasuring 11 acres and 34 gunthas situated at village Limdi, Taluka Jhalod, District Dahod, was originally owned by one Khushantsinh Dipsinh Thakore and his name was reflected in the revenue record. The learned Collector vide order dated 22.02.1951 passed under the provisions of Gujarat Talukdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 declared one Deetabhai Vaghjibhai as a permanent tenant of the said land and name of Deetabhai Vaghjibhai was entered into revenue record vide mutation entry No.12. 3.2 Thereafter, name of said Deetabhai Vaghjibhai was shown in the revenue records from the year 1954-55 to 1963-64 and the ancestors of the petitioner viz. Devchandbhai Bhagabhai and Devabhai Khetabhai purchased the said land from Deetabhai Vaghjibhai vide sale deed dated 13.04.1964 for a sale consideration of Rs.500/- on stamp paper of Rs.4/-. According to the petitioners, their ancestors till their death and thereafter, the petitioners have been enjoying the peaceful possession of land in question since 1964 and till the date of filing of this petition and even till today. According to the petitioners, even in 7/12 extract of the land-in-question, name of the petitioners and their forefather continued to reflect till 2009. According to the petitioners, even in 7/12 extract of the land-in-question, name of the petitioners and their forefather continued to reflect till 2009. 3.3 Thereafter, an encumbrance by way of mortgage in respect of the said land for Rs.800/- was registered in the name of Limdi Co- operative Sahakari Mandli for which a mutation entry No.198 was mutated in the revenue records on 6.4.1963 and subsequently, learned Mamlatdar in the proceedings No.TAO/35/66 vide an allegedly ex-parte order dated 27.4.1968 declared the said land as a Government waste land under Section 6 of the Gujarat Talukadari Abolition Act, 1949. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioners were not given any opportunity of being heard and a mutation entry bearing No.583 dated 22.10.1969 was entered into revenue record. 3.4 As the petitioners and their forefathers name continued to reflect in the revenue records till 2009. In the year 2009, upon computerization of the revenue record by the concerned revenue authorities, a mutation entry No.4995 dated 28.03.2009 was mutated and when the petitioners checked the revenue records for the purpose of entering their names as legal heirs of the mother of the petitioner No.1, they realized that their names were not there in the revenue records against the land-in-question. 3.5 Ultimately, after consuming sometime in procuring required papers, the petitioners preferred RTS Appeal No.88 of 2012 before the Deputy Collector with an application for condonation of delay. In the aforesaid RTS appeal, the petitioners had challenged the order dated 27.04.1968 passed by the Mamlatdar in proceedings No.TAO/35/66 as well as the entry No.583. 3.6 The learned Deputy Collector rejected the said application for condonation of delay on the ground of unexplained delay of 43 years vide order dated 28.09.2012. 3.7 Against the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Collector, the petitioners preferred a Revision Application No.72 of 2012 before the learned Collector, which was also rejected vide order dated 14.10.2013 and therefore, the petitioners challenged the order passed by the Collector before the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) by way of a Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/DAHOD/8/2014. However, the same also was dismissed vide order dated 12.6.2015 by learned Special Secretary and therefore, being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with all the aforesaid three concurrent orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition. 4. Learned advocate Mr. However, the same also was dismissed vide order dated 12.6.2015 by learned Special Secretary and therefore, being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with all the aforesaid three concurrent orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah appearing for the petitioners made following submissions :- 4.1 The petitioners are from the lower strata of the society. As their names were reflecting in the revenue record till 2009, they were unaware about the order dated 27.4.1968 and it is only after computerization of revenue entry, when the petitioners went to enter their names as legal heirs of mother of the petitioners, they realized that their names are not being shown in respect of land-in-question and therefore, the delay is required to be considered from the date of knowledge i.e. in 2009 and therefore, there is no delay of 43 years but actually there is a delay of 3 years only and considering the fact that the names of petitioners and their forefathers have continuously appeared in the revenue record as well as considering the fact that the order dated 27.04.1968 was a nullity, as the same was without jurisdiction, the aforesaid order was required to be quashed and set aside by the Deputy Collector and accordingly, the mutation entry No.583 as well as all consequential entries also were required to be quashed and set aside. 4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah further submitted that all the authorities have committed a grave error by not appreciating the aforesaid aspect and by proceeding on a premise that there was a delay of 43 years as stated herein above. According to learned advocate Mr.Sahil Shah delay was of 3 years only and not of 43 years. 4.3 Further, learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507 in case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) through legal heirs and representatives Versus Jasjit Singh and Others and by relying upon paragraph No.18 of the aforesaid decision, learned advocate Mr. 4.3 Further, learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507 in case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) through legal heirs and representatives Versus Jasjit Singh and Others and by relying upon paragraph No.18 of the aforesaid decision, learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah submitted that as the order dated 27.04.1968 was a nullity, it is open for the petitioners to challenge the same even in a collateral proceedings and in such event delay would not come in the way of the petitioners, as the order which is without jurisdiction is an nonest order and therefore, delay would not come in the way of the petitioners. 4.4 Except the above submissions, no other submissions were made by learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah. 5. Learned advocate Mr. K. T. Beladiya appearing for the respondents No. 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4.1, 6.1.4.2, 6.1.4.3, 6.1.4.4, 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.7, 7.2 made following submissions while opposing the petition. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Beladiya submitted that all the revenue authorities have rightly rejected the petitioners RTS Appeal as well as Revisions arising out of impugned order on the ground of delay as the delay of 43 years have not been explained by the petitioners sufficiently. 5.2 It was also submitted by learned advocate Mr. Beladiya that merely the petitioners name had figured in the revenue record, it does not mean that the petitioners can challenge the order passed in the year 1968, after delay of 43 years in the year 2012. 5.3 It was also submitted by learned advocate Mr. Beladiya that until and unless the order dated 27.04.1968 is quashed and set aside, the entry based on the aforesaid order being entry No.583 could not have been quashed by the Revenue Authorities and therefore, Revenue Authorities have rightly rejected the petitioners RTS appeal as well as Revision Application. 5.4 Learned advocate Mr. Beladiya also pointed out that though at the relevant point of time, while preferring the RTS Appeal No.88 of 2012, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 27.04.1968, as per the case of the respondents, the impugned order dated 27.4.1968, was not forming part of record and the aforesaid order was challenged even without placing it on record and therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to say that the aforesaid proceedings were nonest or without jurisdiction. The authority could have decide the validity of the order only after looking into the order, when the order itself was not placed on record by the petitioners, the authority was justified in rejecting the petitioners application on the ground of delay as 43 years long delay was not explained sufficiently by the petitioners. Learned advocate Mr. Beladiya therefore, prayed for dismissal of petition. 5.5 However, learned advocate Mr. Beladiya also claimed that the respondents No.6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4.1, 6.1.4.2, 6.1.4.3, 6.1.4.4, 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.7, 7.2 are enjoying the possession of the land-in-question since long. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondents No.1 to 5 submitted that the delay of 43 years has not been sufficiently explained by the petitioners and the only explanation coming from the petitioner in his original application for condonation of delay filed along with RTS proceedings indicates that except for making bald averments, no cogent reasons are assigned by the petitioners to condone the delay of 43 years. Further, today Prant Officer, Dahod is present before this Court along with original record. The original record also was shown to learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah and learned advocate Mr. Beladiya by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara. 6.1 By relying upon the original record, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara submitted that factually learned advocate Mr. Beladiya is correct to the extent that the copy of the order dated 27.04.1968 passed in the proceeding No.TAO/35/66 was never a part of record as the same was not placed on record by the petitioners. 6.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara further submitted that therefore when the impugned order dated 27.4.1968 was not on record, the Deputy Collector cannot be expected to make any observations about the correctness of the said order as the challenge in the RTS proceedings was two fold. The petitioners while challenging the order dated 27.04.1968 had also challenged the entry No.583 and therefore what was on record is entry No.583, was considered by the Deputy Collector, while passing the impugned order and as the Deputy Collector found that the aforesaid entry was challenged after delay of 43 years, which was not explained sufficiently, the Deputy Collector had rejected the RTS appeal of the petitioners and subsequently, all the Revenue Authorities viz. Collector and Special Secretary have confirmed the aforesaid orders by rejecting the revision application preferred by the petitioners. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6.3 At this stage, it was also pointed out by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara that as per the scheme of Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, if a person is aggrieved by any order passed under Section 6 of the Act, in that case, he is required to challenge the said order before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In the instant case, the petitioners have chosen the wrong forum as he has challenged the order dated 27.04.1968 by way of RTS proceedings and therefore, the authorities were justified in not making any observations about the validity of the order dated 27.04.1968. Learned Assistant Government Pleader therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. I have head learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of record, I found that though the petitioners have tried to project as if the delay is of 3 years only, actually, what is being challenged is an entry No.583, which was recorded in the year 1969. It is true that the aforesaid entry was mutated on the basis of order dated 27.04.1968 passed in proceedings No.TAO/35/66 by the concerned Mamlatdar, fact remains that the aforesaid order has remained unchallenged till 2012, whereby for the first time, the petitioners challenged the same by way of RTS Appeal No.88 of 2012. So long as the impugned order dated 27.04.1968 remains, the mutation entry No.583 would remain, as the same is mutated on the basis of order dated 27.04.1968. 7.1 Further, upon perusal of orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Collector and Secretary, I found that the petitioners though has tried to explain the delay of 43 years, his application for condonation of delay itself was rejected by the Deputy Collector as the delay was not sufficiently explained. 7.1 Further, upon perusal of orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Collector and Secretary, I found that the petitioners though has tried to explain the delay of 43 years, his application for condonation of delay itself was rejected by the Deputy Collector as the delay was not sufficiently explained. Even upon perusal of the aforesaid application which is a part of the record and the same is produced at page No.95 of this petition, I have found that the delay of 43 long years has not been explained sufficiently by the petitioners and therefore, the application for condonation of delay along with the revision application was rightly rejected by the Deputy Collector and the said order was rightly confirmed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities viz. Collector and Special Secretary by rejecting the revision application of the petitioners. 7.2 As far as the validity of the order dated 27.04.1968 and submission of learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah that the aforesaid order was nullity and the same was passed in violation of principles of natural justice are concerned, this Court even upon perusal of the original record by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara, which was also perused by learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah and learned advocate Mr. Beladiya and all three advocates in one voice stated that the impugned order dated 27.04.1968 is not a part of the proceedings being RTS Appeal No.88 of 2012 before the Deputy Collector. When the impugned order itself was not placed on record by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector, it cannot be expected from the Deputy Collector to make any observations in respect of correctness of the order. 7.3 Further, when as per the scheme of Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, there is a provision to prefer an appeal against the order passed under Section 6 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In that case, the petitioner was required to file an appeal to challenge the order dated 27.04.1968, which the petitioner has not filed till today as per the information of learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah appearing for the petitioners. 7.4 In view of above, I do not see any error committed by the revenue authorities while passing the orders impugned in this petition and therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed. Sahil Shah appearing for the petitioners. 7.4 In view of above, I do not see any error committed by the revenue authorities while passing the orders impugned in this petition and therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed. So far as the petitioners challenged to the order dated 27.04.1968 in proceeding before the Mamlatdar being proceedings No.TAO/35/66 is concerned, considering the fact that the petitioner has not challenge the aforesaid order before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal as well as considering the fact that the aforesaid order is on the basis of which entry No.583 is mutated, coupled with the fact that though the aforesaid order was a subject matter of challenge before the learned Deputy Collector in RTS Appeal No.88 of 2012, as the said order dated 27.4.1968 was never a part of the record before the Deputy Collect and all the authorities have not observed anything about the validity and correctness of impugned order dated 27.04.1968, it is open for the petitioners to challenge the same before the appropriate forum along with an application for condonation of delay. 7.5 So long as the aforesaid order dated 27.04.1968 stands, none of the entries based upon the aforesaid order can be said to be illegal and therefore, as far as RTS proceedings are concerned, the authorities were fully justified in rejecting the appeal and revision application preferred by the petitioners. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, in view of discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, the present petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Notice is discharged.