( 1 ) ). The decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 12th August 1994 in Review Application No. TEN. C. R. 2 of 1989 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereby the Tribunal rejected the present petitioners application for review of its decision of 29th January 1985 in Revision Application No. TEN. A. R. 9 of 1984.

( 2 ) ). The facts giving rise to this petition are not many and not much in dispute. The dispute centres round one property bearing Survey No. 28/2 situated in Jamnagar (the disputed property for convenience ). By his order passed on 22nd January 1970, respondent No. 3 inter alia held the disputed property to be belonging to Sumer Sports Club (the Club for convenience) represented by respondent No. 1 herein. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. Respondent No. 2 took the order at Annexure-A to this petition in suo motu revision in exercise of his powers under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the BLR Code for Brief) after about 12 years from its date.

( 3 ) ). By this order passed 25th August 1982 in Revision Application No. 2 of 1982, respondent No. 2 set aside the order at Annexure-A to this petition and remanded the matter to respondent No. 3 for his fresh inquiry and decision. A copy of the aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 2 is at Annexure-B to this petition. The Club carried the matter in revision before the Tribunal. It came to be registered as TEN. A. R. 9 of 1984. By its decision rendered on 29th January 1985 therein, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by respondent No. 2 at Annexure-B to this petition. A copy of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal is at Annexure-C to this petition. The present petitioner was never a party to any of the previous proceedings upto Annexure-C to this petition. It appears that in some suit proceeding between him and the Club, he was confronted with the order at Annexure-A to this petition as practically came to be affirmed to revision by the Tribunal by its decision at Annexure-C to this petition. He therefore thought it fit to get the decision of the Tribunal at Annexure-C to the petition set aside. He therefore moved an application for review under Section 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957 (the BRT Act for brief ). It came to be registered as Review Application No. TEN. C. R. 2 of 1989. It appears that it was strongly resisted at the stage of its preliminary hearing. By the order passed on 18th August 1989 in the aforesaid Review Application, the Tribunal decided to admit the Review Application for final hearing. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. After hearing the parties, by its decision rendered on 12th August 1994 in the aforesaid Review Application, the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-E to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has therefore invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal inter alia at Annexure-E to this petition. The petitioner has also incidentally questioned the correctness of the order passed by respondent No. 1 at Annexure-A to this petition and the decision rendered by the Tribunal at Annexure-C to this petition.

( 4 ) ). It may be noted that the decision at Annexure-C to this petition was rendered by a Member of the Tribunal, named, Shri J. A. Shekhava. It is not in dispute that, when an application for its review was sought, the said Member had retired and was no longer its Member. The question would therefore arise whether or not any other Member of the Tribunal could review an order passed by its retired Member. If the answer to this question is in the negative, a further question might arise as to what the remedy the aggrieved party would have in such a case.

( 5 ) ). In this connection, a reference deserves to be made to the bi