( 1 ) THESE are two cross petitions against the order of the Revenue Tribunal dated October 28 1970 as the Revenue Tribunal has held that out of the three purchasers in the first petition only Devji Meghji petitioner No. 1 was an agriculturist; while the other two petitioners who had no land in this State and were not personally cultivating any land in the Gujarat State were not agriculturists. Both the parties have challenged the said decision in these two cross petitions.

( 2 ) THE respondentsholders in the first petition held four lands in question. The agreement of sale dated May 8 1963 was entered into with these three purchasers for Rs. 73 551 of which admittedly the total price of Rs. 26000 has been paid on or before May 259 1964. The possession was given to these three purchasers on the very next day i. e. on May 9 1963 As under sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act permission was thought to be necessary the purchasers had applied as per the implied obligation under this agreement to get such permission on July 2 1964 in the form of no objection certificate of the Collector. There is no dispute that the proceeding had ended by the order of the Tribunal dated November 6 1965 by the application being rejected as purchasers had proceeded on the footing that they were agriculturists and so no such permission could be granted. Thereafter the respondent-landholder in the first petition took proceeding under sec. 84 for eviction of these purchasers but even this proceeding had ended by the order of the Tribunal because under the agreement of sale this possession had been taken away from these landholders. Therefore they have filed the present suit as plaintiffs in the Civil Court for getting possession from the purchasers-defendants on the ground that the salutary prohibition under sec. 63 had been violated as possessory interest had been transferred without any permission of the Collector to these three non-agriculturists. That is why the Civil Court had made a reference of the issue about these three defendants-purchasers being agriculturists on the date of the suit agreement dated May 8 1963 The Mamlatdar-A. L. T. answered this Reference by the order dated May 15 1967 that all the purchasers were not agriculturists for the simple reason that the statutory definition as to personal cultivation was not satisfied because so far as the suit lands were concerned even in respect of the purchaser Devji Meghji they were far away from the alleged lands which he held in Kutch area and therefore the relevant condition under sec. 2 (6) (b) could not be fulfilled. The other two purchasers could never fulfill the said condition because they were not cultivating any land in this State. Therefore all the three purchasers-defendants were held to be not agriculturists by the Mamlatdar and. L. T. Against that order in appeal the Prant officer by the order dated November 14 1968 held that all these respondents were agriculturists without keeping any legal perspective of this statutory definition in mind. This finding having been set aside as contrary to law by the Tribunal so far as the other two purchasets are concerned they have raised their grievance in this petition and so far as the first purchaser Devji Meghji was held to be an agriculturist landholders have raised their grievance in the other petition. As common questions are raised in the cross petitions they are disposed of by this common order.

( 3 ) THE preamble of the Act in terms recites that it is an Act to amend the law relating to tenancy of the agricultural land and to make certain other provisions in regard to these lands. The preamble recites as under:whereas it is necessary to amend the law which governs the relations of landlords and tenants of agricultural lands: and whereas on account of the neglect of a holder or dispute between a landholder and his tenants the cultivation of his estate has serio