( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of decision dated November 7, 1984 rendered in Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 1079/83 by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By the impugned decision, the Tribunal partly allowed the revision application, quashing the order of the Deputy Collector so far as it related to the grant of permission to transfer the land of Survey No. 3344/1 under sec. 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the Tenancy act") and remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector for taking decision after hearing the parties.

( 2 ) 2nd respondnet, Raijibhai Dulabhai Vaghri, was tenant in respect of the lands, bearing Survey No. 3344/1 admeasuring 20 Acres 23 Gunthas, among other lands, situated at Kakarkhad in the town of Nadiad in District Kheda. 2nd respondent had become the deemd purchaser of the said land under provisions of the Tenancy Act.

( 3 ) IT appears that 2nd respondent entered into agreemnet to sell the afroesaid land with the repsondent No. 1 Apar Private Limited, Nadiad, and sought permission under section 43 of the Tenancy Act from the Deputy Collector, Nadiad. By the order dated march 8,1982 the Deputy Collector, Nadiad, granted the permission as sought by the 2nd respondent on the condition of payment of the premium of Rs. 1400/- per Guntha of the land. The 2nd respondent had thus to pay Rs. 17,800/- to the State exchequer by way of condition of transferring the said land in favour of respondent No. 1. The 2nd respondent being aggrieved by the said order, so far as it related to the premium-amount of Rs. 1400/- per Guntha for transferring the land, preferred revision application No. 714 of 1982 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The grievance of the 2nd respondent was that the order specifying the permium amount was passed without hearing him. The Tribunal, therefore, by its judgment dated March 21,1983, quashed the order of the Deputy collector and allowed the revision application remanding the matter for a decision afresh according to law.

( 4 ) IT appears that during the pendency of the afroesaid revision application No. 714/82, the second respondent again applied for permission under section 43 of the tenancy Act for transferring the aforesaid land along with other lands to the petitioners. The Deputy Collector, by his order dated October 3,1982, as amended by the order dated november 11, 1982, granted the permission under sec. 43 of the Tenancy Act to the second respondent on condition of paying the premium, Rs. 1980/- to the State exchequer. The first repondent being aggrieved by the said order, preferred Revision Application no. TEN B. A. 1079/83 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under section 76 of the trenancy Act. The Tribunal partly allowed the revision application of the first respondent and ordered to remand the matter to the Deputy Collector for taking a deciision afresh after hearing the respondent No. l, as the Deputy Collector had granted the permission under section 43 of the Act during the pendency of the earlier Revision Application No. 714 of 1982 before the Tribunal. The Deputy Collector thus considered the second or subsequent application of the second respondent in disregard of the stay order that was granted by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the revision application as aforesaid. It is against this order that the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

( 5 ) MR. G. N. Desai, learned Advocate for the petitioner has raised the following points in support of the petition: (I) The respondent No. 1 had no locus standie to prefer the revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, as he had no right to file such revision application against the order passed on application made by the second respondent. (II) The impugned decision of the Tribunal was vitiated on account of non-application of mind, as the first respondent had not preferred the ear