Short Note : 1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to Quash the order of the Board of Revenue which it rendered in proceedings initiated by the petitioner under section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereafter referred to as the Code). 2. The petitioner is admittedly a recorded Bhumiswami of Khasra Nos. 765, 766-A and 766-B. He applied to the Tahsildar, Raghurajnager for measurement of the above Khasra numbers. The Naib-Tahsildar found that one Saryuprasad (now dead and represented by respondents 2 to 5) had encroached upon land of the petitioner to the extent of 440 karis x 33 karis. Similarly, it was found that Shyamlal, respondent No. 6 had encroached upon 1 kari in length x 10 karis of the petitioner's land. The petitioner then applied under section 129 of the Code for demarcation of the boundaries and removal of the encroachment. The respondents resisted the claim. Held : We think, it is not necessary to go into the controversy of the various facts in the case, or interpret the section to find out whether or not, the provisions of the same could be availed of by the petitioner even though he had not established the date of dispossession or the date on which the possession of the respondents became unauthorised. We think that the preliminary objection in this case must succeed. In a writ of certiorari, seeking to quash the order of the Tribunal, it is imperative that such tribunal must be made party to the petition. It is true that the Board of Revenue, who decided the matter in revision, has been made a party in the case. But the Commissioner and the S.D.O. whose orders were affirmed, are not made parties to the proceedings. It would be seen that even if Board's order was quashed, the order of the Commissioner as also the order of the S.D.O., which were against the petitioner, would govern the case. The omission to join the Commissioner and the S.D.O. is fatal in the circumstances of the case and it can not be cured. We are fortified in our view by decision in Laxmi Kumari v. Radhekishan (1961 JLJ 1344). The omission to join the Commissioner and the S.D.O. is fatal in the circumstances of the case and it can not be cured. We are fortified in our view by decision in Laxmi Kumari v. Radhekishan (1961 JLJ 1344). Shri B.G. Apte, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on decision in Udit Narain Singh v. Board of Revenue ( AIR 1963 SC 786 ), but this case does not support him. On the contrary, it is observed that when a writ of certiorari was prayed, the Tribunal whose orders are sought to be quashed, are necessary parties to the petition. There is, therefore, no merit in the contention that the order of the lower revenue Courts having been merged in the final order of the Board of Revenue, their joining as the parties was merely technical. Realising this difficulty, Shri Apte has moved an application for amendment seeking to join the Commissioner-and the S.D.O. as parties. We think, this amendment application is belated and can not be entertained at this stage. 1961 JLJ 1344 relied on, AIR 1963 SC 786 distinguished. Petition dismissed.