( 1 ) THE petitioner Babiben purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 78 admeasuring 14 acres 22 gunthas of village Garambdi Taluka Wav on 31st May 1975 for Rs. 6 0 from respondent Manabhai Narsangbhai Patel since deceased. Admittedly while purchasing this land no permission of the Collector or an officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf was obtained before the execution of the sale deed. The question which therefore arose for consideration was whether the sale in favour of the petitioner was invalid in view of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter called the Act ). The Mamlatdar came to the conclusion that the petitioner was an agriculturist and therefore it was not obligatory to secure the permission of the Collector or the authorised officer before the purchase of the land in question. He therefore upheld the sale transaction by his order dated 15th July 1977 Exhibit 8. The Deputy Collector Tharad however entertained some doubt in this behalf and initiated suo motu proceedings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction conferred upon him by the statute and by his order dated 31st March 1978 he came to the conclusion that the sale was invalid inasmuch as the petitioner was not an agriculturist and had not obtained the prior permission of the Collector or the authorised officer for the purchase of the land. Against this order of the Deputy Collector the petitioner preferred a Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 435 of 1978 (Ahmedabad) which was disposed of in her favour by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 3rd August 1978 The Revenue Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was an agriculturist and hence the Deputy Collector was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the Mamlatdar. The Revision Application was allowed and the order of the Deputy Collector was set aside and the order of the Mamlatdar was restored. It appears that thereafter on the application of the original owner Manabhai Narsangbhai Patel the order was reviewed by the Revenue Tribunal on 25th April 1979. By the said order the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not an agriculturist and hence the sale was invalid as hit by Section 63 of the Act. It is against that order that the present petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) SECTION 63 insofar as it is relevant for our purpose reads as under:"63 (1) Save as provided in this Act - (a) no sale gift exchange or lease of any land or interest therein shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist or who being an agriculturist cultivates personally land not less than the ceiling area whether as an owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant or who is not an agricultural labourer. Provided that the Collector or an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may grant permission for such sale gift exchange lease or mortgage or for such agreement on such conditions as may be prescribed: provided further that no such permission shall be granted where land is being sold to a person who is not an agriculturist for agricultural purpose if the annual income of such person from other sources exceeds five thousand rupees. " The term agriculturist is defined in Section 2 (2 ). to mean a person who cultivates land personally. The expression to cultivate with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means to till or husband the land for the purpose of raising or improving agricultural produce whether by manual labour or by means of cattle or machinery or to carry on any agricultural operation thereon; (Section 2 (5) ). We then come to Section 2 (6) which defines the expression to cultivate personally as: to cultivate land on ones own account by ones own labour or by the labour of any member of ones family or under the personal supervision of oneself or any member of ones family by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in c