JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division Agra vide his order dated 20-12-1985 passed in revision under Section 333-A against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. District Agra dated 15-1-1985. 2. In the trial court Naubat Ram filed the application that the revisionist Chheda lal is enclosing his land on the strength of Farji sale-deed. The trial court conducted the inquiry and have held that the sale-deed executed on 20-12-80 by Naubat is void as no permission was obtained under Section 157-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 therefore, the trail court ordered that the disputed land should be recorded in the name of the applicant and possession should be also insured to be given to him. The purchaser Chheda Lal filed revision against that order which has been dismissed by the Addl. Commissioner on the ground that the State Government has not been impleaded as party, therefore, the revision is not maintainable. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for Naubat and learned D.G.C. (R.) and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the State, as well Opp. Party and the learned counsel for the revisionist admitted that the State is a necessary party in the proceeding. The legal question is involved in this proceeding is whether the land which was transferred without obtaining permission under Section 157-A of the Act is a void and if it is so void then whether it will revert back to the State or to the vendor ? The trial court as well as the revisional court have failed to decide this legal question which is involved in this revision, therefore, the revision is allowed and the order of the trial court is set aside and the trial court is directed to implead State government as a party in the proceeding and after issuing of notice then decide the case afresh on these legal issues in accordance with law.