A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (Ceiling) at Babra (the first authority for convenience) on 14/11/1980 in Ceiling Case No. 168 of 1978 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Assistant Collector at Amreli on 24/09/1982 in Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1982 as further affirmed in revision and review by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad by its decisions rendered on 25th November 1983 and 4/07/1984 in Revision Application No. TEN. B. R. 14 of 1983 and Review Application No. TEN. C. R. 5 of 1984 respectively is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order the first authority declared the holding of respondent No. 2 herein to be in excess of the ceiling area by 2 acres 28 gunthas of lands. ( 2 ) THE fact giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 2 was found to be holding certain parcels of land in all admeasuring 53 acres 13 gunthas in village Shakhpur taluka Lathi district Amreli (the disputed lands for convenience ). The first authority thereupon undertook the necessary inquiry under Section 20 of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act 1960 (the Act for brief ). It came to be registered as Ceiling Case No. 168 of 1976. After recording evidence and hearing the parties by his order passed on 14/11/1980 in Ceiling Case No. 168 of 1976 the first authority declared the holding of respondent No. 2 to be in excess of the ceiling area by 2 acres 28 gunthas. The surplus land was ordered to be carved out from his holding of survey No. 360/1 as desired by him. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that respondent No. 2 unsuccessfully carried the matter in appeal and in revision. It appears that the petitioner herein purchased 7 acres 32 gunthas of lands from Survey No. 360/1 belonging to respondent No. 2 from the latter. It appears that the surplus land declared by the first authority was sought to be carved out from the aforesaid land bearing Survey No. 360/1 sold by hire to the present petitioners. It appears that the petitioner herein purchased 7 acres 32 gunthas of lands from Survey No. 360/1 belonging to respondent No. 2 from the latter. It appears that the surplus land declared by the first authority was sought to be carved out from the aforesaid land bearing Survey No. 360/1 sold by hire to the present petitioners. It appears that they came to know of the order at Annexure-A to this petition and they therefore carried the matter in appeal before the Assistant Collector at Amreli. Their appeal came to be registered as Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1982 By his order passed on 24/09/1982 in Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1982 the Assistant Collector at Amreli dismissed it as time-barred. The aggrieved petitioners thereupon unsuccessfully invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad by means of their Revision Application No. TEN. B. R. 14 of 1983. By its decision rendered on 25/11/1983 in the aforesaid revisional application the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. The petitioners made an unsuccessful attempt to get the decision at Annexure-C to this petition reviewed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad by means of their Review Application No. TEN C. R. 5 of 1984. By its decision rendered on 4/07/1984 in the aforesaid Review Application the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution or India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure- B to this petition and as further affirmed in revision and review by the decisions at Annexures C and D respectively to this petition. ( 3 ) IT is an admitted position on record that the petitioners purchased a parcel of land admeasuring 7 acres 32 gunthas from Survey No. 360/1 belonging to respondent No. 2 on 19/12/1977. By that time the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act had already come to be initiated against respondent No. 2 to find out whether or not his holding exceeded the ceiling area prescribed thereunder. It appears that the petitioners did not make any inquiry in that regard. By that time the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act had already come to be initiated against respondent No. 2 to find out whether or not his holding exceeded the ceiling area prescribed thereunder. It appears that the petitioners did not make any inquiry in that regard. They appear to have overlooked the well- known principle of caveat emptor or Buyer beware. They ought to have made the necessary inquiries before purchasing the land in question from respondent No. 2 on 19/12/1977. It appears that they have been duped by respondent No. 2 herein with respect to the sale transaction. Their remedy against respondent No. 2 presumably lies elsewhere as advised. ( 4 ) IT is however not possible for me to agree with Shri Hathi for the petitioners in his submission to the effect that the proceedings culminating into the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition stood vitiated for want of service of notice thereof to the present petitioners. With respect I find no provision in Section 20 of the Act providing for service of notice individually to all the persons affected. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act makes down provision for issue of a public notice calling upon all persons affected thereby to submit to the first authority their objections or suggestions if any within a period of one month from the date of publication of the list prepared under Section 13 thereof. It is not the case of the petitioners that no such public notice as contemplated thereunder was issued by the first authority. Sub-section (2) thereof speaks of issue of a notice to the landholder and not to each of the persons affected by the list prepared under Section 13 of the Act. It is obvious that the list prepared thereunder would affect the persons who could have transactions with the landholder prior to 1/04/1976 and not thereafter. In that view of the matter. the submission urged before me by Shri Hathi for the petitioners to the effect that the proceedings before the first authority stood vitiated for want of individual notice to the petitioners deserves to be rejected. ( 5 ) THE reliance placed on Section 42-A of the Act by Shri Hathi for the petitioners in support of this petition is perhapsmisconceived. the submission urged before me by Shri Hathi for the petitioners to the effect that the proceedings before the first authority stood vitiated for want of individual notice to the petitioners deserves to be rejected. ( 5 ) THE reliance placed on Section 42-A of the Act by Shri Hathi for the petitioners in support of this petition is perhapsmisconceived. Under that provision the concerned Revenue Officer is ordered to be made a necessary party in all inquiries and proceedings under the Act including the one under Section 20 thereof. The petitioners were admittedly not associated with the inquiries culminating into the order at Annexure-A to this petition. They would not have any first-hand information whether or not the concerned Revenue Officer was a party to the proceedings in question. Shri Hathi for the petitioners informs me at the Bar that on examination of the proceedings before the first authority at the time of institution of appeal revision and review before the competent forums the petitioners found that the Review Officer was not made a party to the proceedings culminating into the order at Annexure-A to this petition. Making of the concerned Revenue Officer a party to the inquiries and proceedings under the Act is for the benefit of the revenue. The intention behind it could be that the revenue is not defrauded in any manner in any inquiry or proceeding under the Act. It is not necessary to dilate on it at great length. If the Revenue Officer is not made a party to any inquiry or proceeding under that Act the aggrieved person would be the revenue. The landholder also could be aggrieved if the Revenue Officer is not a party inasmuch as the correct factual data with respect to his holding may not come on record. When a provision is enacted for the benefit of certain persons it would be open to those persons to waive such benefit. The record does not show that respondent No. 2 ever made any grievance about non-joinder of the Revenue Officer as a party to the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. Respondent No. 1 before me has admittedly made no such grievance at any stage of the proceedings and even not at this stage before this Court. The present petitioners have entered the arena only after 1/04/1976. Respondent No. 1 before me has admittedly made no such grievance at any stage of the proceedings and even not at this stage before this Court. The present petitioners have entered the arena only after 1/04/1976. They could not be said to have any concern with the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. They cannot therefore make any grievance about non-joinder of the concerned Revenue Officer as a party to the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. Even at the cost of repetition I reiterate that they appear to have been duped by respondent No. 2 and they could have their remedy against him before a proper forum as advised and not in any proceedings under the Act. ( 6 ) SHRI Hathi has then made a grievance that the Assistant Collector was not justified in disposing their appeal on the ground of limitation without examining merits of the case. It is an admitted position on record that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad in exercise of its revisional powers culminating into its decision at Annexure C to this petition has examined the case of the petitioners on merits. It cannot be gainsaid that the lower Tribunal had powers to remand the matter to the appellate authority if it found it necessary to do so. Instead it has chosen to examine the merits of the case itself within its revisional jurisdiction. I think the appellate order at Annexure B to this petition can therefore be said to have merged into the revisional decision at Annexure C to this petition. In that view of the matter non-examination for the merits of the case of the petitioners by the appellate authority would be insignificant. ( 7 ) THERE were the only submissions urged before me in support of this petition. I have found no merit or substance in any of them. I am therefore of the opinion that this petition deserves to be rejected. ( 8 ) IN the result the petitioners fail. This petition is rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged however with no order as to costs. .