J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. By This Application Under Article 227 Of The Constitution Of India, the applicants call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 25th July 2016 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.874 of 1994 preferred by the legal heirs of the original tenants i.e. the respondents Nos.4/1 to 4/8 herein challenging the order dated 21st April 1986 passed by the Deputy Collector, Kheda in Tenancy Revision Application No.677 of 1984 as well as the order dated 27th November 1979 passed by the Mamlatdar (A.L.T.), Anand in Tenancy Case No.356 of 1979.

2. It Appears From The Materials On Record That The Mamlatdar And A.L.T., Anand, vide order dated 27th November 1979, closed/dropped the inquiry initiated by him under Section 32(1) (B) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1947 in respect of the parcels of land bearing survey No.1995 admeasuring about 1 Acre and 11 Gunthas situated in village: Bakrol of Taluka: Anand. The Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Anand held that one Mala (Zalabhai) Sardarbhai, the predecessor of the respondents Nos.4/1 to 4/8 was not the tenant of the subject land, and in such circumstances, his heirs were not entitled to inherit any tenancy rights in respect of the parcels of land.

3. It Appears That The Subject Land Was Of The Ownership Of One Patel Kasibhai Gokalbhai. Patel Kasibhai is the predecessorin title of the petitioners herein. He was not in a position to cultivate the subject land personally. The name of one Zalabhai Sardarbhai was figuring in the revenue records in respect of the subject land. However, his name came to be deleted vide entry No.3073.The Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Anand initiated an inquiry under Section 32(1) (B) of the Act, 1948 by issuing notice dated 19th November 1979 upon Malabhai Sardarbhai.

4. In The Course Of The Aforesaid Inquiry, It Came To The Notice Of The Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Anand that Malabhai Sardarbhai had passed away and his name was deleted from the revenue record in respect of the concerned parcels of land. The Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Anand, having recorded a finding that the heirs, were not entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of Sections 40 and 32(1) (B) of the Act, 1948, closed the inquiry vide order dated 27th November 1979.

5. The aforesaid order dated 27th November 1979 passed by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Anand was taken up by the Deputy Collector, Kheda in a suo motu review. The said review proceedings culminated in the Tenancy Case No.678 of 1984.

6. Upon Issuance Of Notice By The Deputy Collector, Kheda In The Tenancy Case No.677 of 1984, Manguben, the widow of Mavabhai Sardarbhai, appeared in the aforesaid proceedings before the Deputy Collector, Kheda and gave an oral statement that her husband had passed away about thirty years back and her father-in-law had also passed away about twenty years back. She further stated that her husband Mavabhai had never cultivated the subject land during his lifetime. In view of such statement made by Manguben, the Deputy Collector, Kheda dropped the suo motu proceedings and affirmed the order dated 27th November 1979 passed by the Mamlatdar in the Tenancy Case No.356. The respondents Nos.4/1 to 4/8, after a lapse of about eight years, challenged the order dated 21st April 1986 passed by the Deputy Collector, Kheda in the Tenancy Revision Application No.677 of 1984 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by filing a revision application. The said revision application was registered as the Revision Application No.874 of 1994.

7. The revision application came to be allowed by the Tribunal. While allowing the revision application, the Tribunal observed as under:

"The arguments and documentary evidences produced by the parties have been taken into consideration. Accordingly, it is the argument of the applicants that the procedure of Tenancy Revision no. 677/84 was conducted after the delay of four years. This order is clearly considered as time barred because t