( 1 ) THE petitioners, in this petition, have challenged the orders passed by the revenue authorities, namely Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad and have also prayed for quashing and setting aside the said orders.

( 2 ) THE brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that the petitioner was in possession of the land bearing Survey No. 45 admeasuring 2 Acres and 19 Gunthas and Survey No. 40 admeasuring 0 Acre and 15 Gunthas, total New Block No. 28 admeasuring 2 Acres and 34 Gunthas situated in the Sim of Village Barmuvada, Taluka Mehmdavad, District-Kheda, by virtue of mortgage document dated 27. 5. 1970 executed by one Mangaji Ghelaji Parmar who was the owner and occupant of the said land. The possession of the said land was taken by the said original owner Mangaji Ghelaji pursuant to a valid and legal order of the Mamlatdar passed under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The petitioner was in possession of the said land since 1970. The Mamlatdar and ALT initiated proceedings under Section 32 (1b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") and in the said proceedings no legal and valid notice was issued to the present petitioners even though the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land. It is stated in the petition that there was no evidence on record showing that the ingredients of Section 32 (1b) of the Act were established by deceased Vajaji Andarji the respondent No. 2 herein who claimed to be the original-tenant. Since the landlord has given the possession of the disputed land under mortgage document dated 27-5-1970, the land was not in possession of the landlord on 3. 3. 1973 and in this view of the matter the deceased respondent No. 2 was not entitled to get the land under Section 32 (1b) of the Act. Despite this, the Mamlatdar by his order dated 25. 8. 1980 has passed an order holding that the deceased respondent No. 2 was entitled to restoration of the said disputed land.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the Mamlatdar, the petitioner had preferred Tenancy Appeal before the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Collector by his order and judgment dated 2-1-1982 had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being further aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Collector the petitioner filed Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, being No. TEN. B. A. 715 of 1983 on 3-5-1983. The petitioner has explained the reasons for late filing of Revision Application before the Tribunal stating that the office of the Deputy Collector has not communicated the said judgment to the petitioner and the petitioner came to know about the said Judgment only when the Talati-cum-Mantri of the village informed the petitioner on 13-4-1983 that he had to hand over the possession of the land to the respondents. The petitioner thereafter immediately applied for the certified copy which was delivered to the petitioner on 26. 4. 1983 and the Revision Application came to be filed on 3-5-1983. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, however, without deciding the issue on merits had rejected the Revision Application on the ground of limitation. It was observed by the Tribunal that if the Revision or Appeal is obviously time barred, it is the duty of the parties to give the reasons for the delay and to give some evidence for the same. At the most, an affidavit to this effect was to be filed. However, nothing was done in the case of the petitioner and hence there was no reason to consider the matter in time or no reason to condone the delay. Accordingly the Revision Application was dismissed as time barred, vide order dated 31-1-1989.

( 4 ) IT is this order of the Tribunal which is under challenge before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition was admitted by this Court on 4-1-1994. The legal heirs of respondent No. 2 have filed their appearance and affidavit-in-r