( 1 ) BY this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 26-7-1993 recorded in Revision application No. 125 of 1992 whereby the judgment and order passed by the Deputy collector, Valsad in Ceiling Appeal No. 12 of 1992 dated 26-6-1992 remanding the case to the Mamlatdar, came to be confirmed while dismissing the revision on merits. Facts run in a narrow compass. One Jaikrishna Ramashankar Joshi had filled in form No. 2 under S. 10 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (Guj. Act No. XXVII of 1961) (G. A. L. C. Act ). In the said form, it was stated that he was holding 10 acres 4. 5 gunthas of agricultural land and also 10 acres of agricultural lands at village Haladpada, Taluka Dahanu in Maharashtra State. The declarant had also stated in the form that there were 4 members in his family and there was no excess or surplus land.

( 2 ) THE Mamlatdar and A. L. T. (Ceiling), Umargam in Ceiling Case No. 47 of 1991 by his order dated 29-7-1991 held that the petitioners were not holding any excess land in the State of Gujarat and also in the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, notice against them came to be withdrawn. Therefore, the Deputy Collector, Valsad in ceiling Appeal No. 12 of 1992 by his order dated 4-7-1992 remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. , Umargam quashing his order. The Appellate Authority directed the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. for rehearing on three points stated in his order by exercising his power under S. 37 of the G. A. L. C. Act. Being aggrieved by the order of remand recorded by the Deputy Collector, Valsad, the petitioners questioned the legality and validity of the same by filing a revision before the Gujarat Revenue tribunal invoking the aids of the provisions of S. 38 of the G. A. L. C. Act which came to be rejected confirming the order of the Deputy Collector. Hence this petition.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order of the Deputy Collector, Valsad passed on 4-7-1992 is patently illegal as the revision was filed against dead person. It is a settled proposition of law that any order or judgment or decision passed against dead person is a nullity. No Court or authority has jurisdiction to pass any order or judgment in favour or against a dead person. It is a matter of common knowledge that Courts or authorities could pass orders or judgments in matters which are competently filed before them and not in non-existent matters.

( 4 ) IT appears from the record that the appeal was filed by the Deputy Mamlatdar against Jaikrishna Ramashankar Joshi, original holder of the land. He was dead on the date when the appeal was filed. Deceased Jaikrishna Ramashankar Joshi died on 23-2-1987 and the appeal was filed by the Deputy Collector (sic. Mamlatdar) against a dead person, viz. Jaikrishna Ramashankar Joshi. It was, therefore, contended that the appeal was a nullity and the judgment and order passed in the appeal against a dead person is illegal and non est.

( 5 ) PRIMA facie, the aforesaid contention would appear to be captivating, but not convincing, subtle but not sound in the light of the facts emerging from the record of the present case. There is no dispute about the fact that appeal was filed by the deputy Mamlatdar stating the name of dead person, viz. , Jaikrishna Ramashankar joshi. However, the decision rendered therein cannot be said to be illegal or nullity in view of the following peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

( 6 ) IT appears that the name of the deceased was mistakenly shown in the title of the appeal filed by the Deputy Mamlatdar. Since the deceased Jaikrishna ramashankar Joshi had filled in the requisite form No. 2 under S. 10 of the g. A. L. C. Act, his name appears to have been mistakenly mentioned in the title of the appeal filed by the Deputy Mamlatdar. Notice of