( 1 ) A Co-operative Society formed by members of middle-class citizens of Baroda has been subjected to great injustice by an obvious mis-reading and misconstruction of sec. 64a of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (Tenancy Act) as will be evident in a short-while. The society concerned thereupon has invoked the jurisdic- tion of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and has challenged the order passed by the Mamlatdar of Baroda at Annexure C as confirmed by the Deputy Collector of Baroda as confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) at Annexure A.

( 2 ) LAND admeasuring 1 Acre. 9 Gunthas comprised in Survey No. 265 of village Maneja was purchased by the petitioner Society - a society of middle-class citizens of Baroda formed under the relevant provisions of the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act of 1925 for a consideration of Rs. 64 0 by a registered document dated May 5 1967 from respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Having purchased the land the petitioner Society obtained a loan of Rs. 2 16 0 from the Gujarat Cooperative Housing Finance Society Ltd. Ahmedabad. With the amount so obtained by way of loan and with the savings effected by the members of the society houses were constructed on the plots which were carved out from the aforesaid land. Some five years later in 1972 the Mamlatdar of Baroda suddenly woke up and initiated a suo motu enquiry purporting to exercise powers under sec. 84c of the Tenancy Act and called upon the petitioner sock to show cause why the transaction of purchase of the aforesaid land effected five years earlier in 1967 should not be held to be illegal and invalid rea- son of the fact that permission for entering into the transaction was not obtained from the Collector of Baroda under sec. 63 of the Tenancy Act. After affording an opportunity to the petitioner society to be heard the Mamlatdar came to the conclusion that a permission under sec. 63 of the Tenancy Act was a sine qua non for a valid purchase and that the tran- saction in question was illegal and invalid. This view has been confirmed by the Deputy Collector in appeal and the GRT in the revisional appli- cation preferred by the petitioner Society. It was argued before the GRT on behalf of the petitioner society that sec. 63 of the Tenancy Act was not at all applicable to a transaction entered into by a Cooperative Society constituted under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act 1925 in view of sec. 64a of the Tenancy Act which was on the statute book since 1951. Sec. 64a on which reliance was placed is in the following terms :64 A. Nothing in secs. 63 and 64 shall apply to sales affected by or in favour of a co-operative society under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act 1925 on a plain reading of sec. 64a it is evident that secs. 63 and 64 of the Tenancy Act do not apply to sales effected either by a society which is constituted under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act 1925 or in res- pect of sales made in favour of such a society. The GRT however on an impossible reading of sec. 64a accepted a distorted interpretation canvassed on behalf of the State and accepted the contention that what was exempted was a transaction of sale made under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act 1925

( 3 ) NOW the Statement of Objects and Reasons to Bom. Act XII of 1951 whereby the aforesaid provision was introduced in the Tenancy Act reads as under: object-Statutory bodies like Co-operative Societies and Land Mortgage (Develop- ment) Banks have taken over work which was hitherto before done by Government. Unlike landlords these bodies are not profit-making and consist of not one but several individuals most of whom are themselves agriculturists. It is therefore desirable to exempt such bodies from the operation of secs. 63 and 64 of the Act. The aforesaid statement of Objects and Reasons leaves no room for doubt or debate. The sole purpose of introducing the provision was to exempt cooperative Societies from the o