A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 31st January 1991 in Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 624 of 1984 as affirmed in review by it by its decision rendered on 12th August 1993 in Review Application No. TEN. C. A. 1 of 1993 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By its impugned decision the Tribunal upset the permission granted by the Deputy Collector at Anand on 11th/16th January 1982 under Section 43 read with Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (the Act for brief) to the predecessor-in-title of respondent No. 5 herein (the deceased for convenience) to sell one parcel of land bearing survey No. 1478/1 admearuring 0. 08 gunthas situated at Anand district Kheda (the disputed land for convenience) to the petitioner herein. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The deceased was the tenant of the disputed land as on 1st April 1957. According to the petitioner the deceased became its deemed purchaser with effect from 13th December 1960. Its purchase price was fixed but the landlords representatives that is. respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein disputed the purchase price so fixed. That dispute has nothing to do with this petition. It appears that the deceased applied to the competent officer for permission under Section 43 read with Section 63 of the Act to sell the disputed land to the present petitioner. By his order passed on 11th/16th January 1982 the Deputy Collector at Anand granted permission. Thereupon the deceased sold the disputed land to the present petitioner by a registered sale deed executed on 6 March 1982. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. Pursuant thereto the disputed land appears to have been mutated in the name of the present petitioner in the revenue records. Its extract is at Annexure-B to this petition. It appears that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 as the landlords of the disputed land came to know of the transaction between the deceased and the present petitioner pursuant to the permission granted by the Deputy Collector at Anand on 11th/16th January 1982 under Section 43 read with Section 63 of the Act for its sale. It appears that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 as the landlords of the disputed land came to know of the transaction between the deceased and the present petitioner pursuant to the permission granted by the Deputy Collector at Anand on 11th/16th January 1982 under Section 43 read with Section 63 of the Act for its sale. They thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal by means of their Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 624 of 1984 for questioning the correctness of the aforesaid permission granted by the Deputy Collector at Anand for sale of the disputed land by the deceased to the present petitioner. By its decision rendered on 31st January 1991 in the aforesaid revisional application the Tribunal accepted it and the aforesaid permission granted by the Deputy Collector at Anand on 11th/16th January 1982 for sale of the disputed land by the deceased to the present petitioner was set aside. A copy of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Tribunal on 31st January 1991 is at Annexure-D to this petition. It may be mentioned at this stage that the present petitioner was not made a party to the revisional proceeding culminating into the decision at Annexure-D to this petition. The petitioner appears to have come to know of it. He therefore approached the Tribunal for seeking its review by means of his Review Application No. TEN. C. A. 1 of 1993. The memo of the Review Application is at Annexure-E to this petition. By its decision rendered on 12th August 1993 in the aforesaid Review Application the Tribunal rejected it inter alia on the ground that the present petitioner had no locus standi in the matter. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon moved this Court by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned decision at Annexure-D to this petition as affirmed in review by the impugned decision at Annexure-F to this petition. ( 3 ) IT transpires from the decision at Annexure-F to this petition that the Tribunal refused to exercise its review jurisdiction mainly on the ground that the present petitioner was not a necessary party to the revisional proceeding culminating into its decision at Annexure-D to this petition. ( 3 ) IT transpires from the decision at Annexure-F to this petition that the Tribunal refused to exercise its review jurisdiction mainly on the ground that the present petitioner was not a necessary party to the revisional proceeding culminating into its decision at Annexure-D to this petition. I think this approach of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law for the simple reason that the petitioner purchased the disputed land pursuant to the permission granted by the Deputy Collector at Anand under Section 43 read with Section 63 of the Act. It is obvious that once the deceased sold the disputed land to the petitioner the former would cease to have any interest in any proceeding taken out pertaining to the disputed land. Any proceeding pertaining thereto culminating into any adverse order would obviously affect the petitioner. He would therefore be a necessary party to the proceeding; else his rights would stand jeopardised becasue the vendor might have lost all interest in such proceeding. ( 4 ) IT appears that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein were aware of the transaction between the deceased and the present petitioner when they invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal culminating into its decision at Annexure-D to this petition. In fact was their duty to have impleaded the present petitioner a party-respondent to the revisional proceeding. Even at that stage the Tribunal ought to have realised that the person vitally affected would be the present petitioner. It ought to have therefore asked respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein to implead the present petitioner a party-respondent to the revisional proceeding culminating into the impugned decision at Annexure-D to this petition. I think the Tribunal has failed in its duty in that regard resulting into rendering its decision at Annexure-D to this petition null and void qua the present petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is true as rightly submitted by Shri R. A. Patel for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein that the Tribunal has in its impugned decision at Annexure-F to this petition observed that the case for review could not be brought within the four corners of its review jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act 1957 This observation of the Tribunal appears to be quite cursory in nature. The conclusion in that regard appears to be quite ipse dixit. The conclusion in that regard appears to be quite ipse dixit. The submission urged before it by and on behalf of the petitioner herein is not properly appreciated. As pointed out hereinabove the Tribunal failed in its duty in not asking respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein that is the revisional petitioners before it to implead the present petitioner a party-respondent to the revisional proceeding culminating into its impugned decision at Annexure-D to this petition. In exercise of its review jurisdiction the Tribunal ought to have realised this error or mistake on its part. This by itself would be a sufficient ground for exercise of its review jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act 1957 ( 6 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion I am of the opinion that the impugned decision at Annexure-F to this petition cannot be sustained in law even for a moment. It has to be quashed and set aside. The matter will have to be remanded to the Tribunal for restoration of Review Application No. TEN. C. A. 1 of 1993 to file and for its fresh decision according to law in the light of this judgment of mine. ( 7 ) IN the result this petition is accepted. The decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad on 12th August 1993 in Review Application No. TEN. C. A. 1 of 1993 at Annexure-F to this petition is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad for restoration of Review Application No. TEN. C. A. 1. of 1993 to file and for its fresh decision according to law in the light of this judgment of mine. It would be desirable on the part of the Tribunal to accord top priority to disposal of the remanded proceeding. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. .