( 1 ) INTERESTINGLY, the interpretation and applicability of the provisions of law relating to review analogous to Order 47 Rules 1 and 5 of the civil Procedure Code, 1908, (Code) are the main questions which are raised. In short, whether a successor in office is competent to review the judgment, order or decision is the sole, but substantial issue which has surfaced in these two petitions. Since both the petitions raise important but identical question, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE petitioners who are agriculturists holding agricultural lands had submitted information under Sec. 10 of the Gujarat Agriculural Lands Ceiling Act, 1961 (G. A. L. C. Act) on coming into force of it. Thereupon, the concerned Mamlatdar and A. L. T. after holding an inquiry held that they are holding land in excess of the ceiling area. The petitioners carried the matter before the Gujarat Revenue tribunal. The petitioners lost in the revisions before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The petitioners, thereafter, submitted review applications which came to be rejected by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on the gound that review applications which have been filed by the petitioners against the judgment and orders of the President of the Tribunal who was no longer available and same could not be entertained by the successor.

( 3 ) THE petitioners being dissatisfied by the impugned orders of the Tribunal in review applications have, now, come up before this Court challenging the legality and validity of the said orders by filing these petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is constituted under Sec. 3 of the Bombay revenue Tribunal Act, 1957 (B. R. T. Act ). The provision about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is made in Sec. 9 of the B. R. T. Act. The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal refusing to review the orders passed in revision under Sec. 38 of the G. A. L. C. Act. Section 38 of the G. A. L. C. Act provides revisional jurisdiction of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.

( 4 ) THE review of the orders passed in revisions came to be refused by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on the ground that the author of the judgment had retired and was not available and therefore, his successor in office is not competent to review. Section 17 of the B. R. T. Act provides power of review of the order of the Tribunal. Though the general language in which sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17 of the B. R. T. Act has been worded is different from the general language in which Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been worded, the grounds on which the power to review its own order can be exercised by the Revenue Tribunal are the same as those by the Civil Courts. Regulation 31 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulations, 1958 prescribes the procedure of hearing of review applications by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Regulation 31 reads as under :"31. Where a single member or the members of a Bench who decided the case or made the order, a review of which is applied for, or one of such members continue or continues to be a member or members of the Tribunal at the time when the application for such review is to be heard, such member or a Bench consisting of such member or members, as the case may be, shall hear the application and no other bench shall hear the same. "

( 5 ) THE Gujarat Revenue Tribunal held that Regulation 31 of the Bombay revenue Tribunal Regulations will not come to the rescue of the petitioners because it provides that when a single member of the Tribunal who decided the case is no longer available, the review application can be heard by no other member of the tribunal. It, therefore, held that the remedy in that case is to go to the higher forum and placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11487 of 1994. The said decision has been reported in 1995 (1) GLH 619 (Ex- subedar, Bhupatsingh Nanu