( 1 ) OBTAIN by proper management or otherwise an unlawful and erroneous order permitting to transfer land in favour of non-agriculturist-see that the same is not challenged by vendor of the land. The phrase proper management conveys everything that commonsense should dictate having regard to the realities of life. In this fashion can any one frustrate the objects of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 ? Or is it open to the State Government to challenge such orders in revision notwithstanding the fact that the Government is not a party in the proceedings before lower authority ? These are few of the questions involved in these petitions besides other common questions of law and facts. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases at the request of and by consent of the parties all these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE petitions are under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner No. 1 a Private Limited Company and other petitioners who are original owners of the land challenge the legality and validity of the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by which the Tribunal cancelled the permission to purchase agricultural land granted to the petitioner No. 1-Private Limited Company. The Deputy Collector under Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 had granted the permission. The Tribunal as per its order dated 20/09/1985 cancelled the order of the Deputy Collector and remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector for being considered the same in accordance with law. Same is the position in all the matters. This order is challenged by the petitioners.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order under Sec. 63 of the Act is required to be passed by the Collector. When the Deputy Collector exercised this power under Sec. 63 he acted as a delegate of the Collector. Therefore the revision could not have been filed by the Collector. In his submission revision at the instance of the Collector would amount to challenging the legality nd validity of the order passed by the Collector himself.

( 4 ) THE contention cannot be accepted. The term Collector has it defined in Sec. 2e of the Act which reads as follows :" 2e. Collector includes an Assistant or Deputy Collector performing the duties and exercising the powers of the Collector under the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 or any other Officer specially empowered by the State Government to perform the functions of the Collector under this Act. "in the instant case the Deputy Collector granted permission for sale of the land as per his order dated 27/08/1982 The revision had been filed by the Collector. As per definition of the term Collector any of the officers mentioned in the definition clause can be termed as Collector. He may be an Additional Collector Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector or any other officer specially empowered under the Act in this behalf. Therefore it is not correct to say that when the Deputy Collector exercised his power he exercised the power under Sec. 63 of the Act as a delegate of the Collector. The Deputy Collector has exercised his power in his own right as Collector as per the definition under Sec. 2e of the Act.

( 5 ) IT is also not correct to say that when the Collector prefers revision it would amount to challenging ones own order. The Collector does not prefer revision in his capacity as Collector. When he files the revision he acts as the representative of the Government. The Government may take action either through the Collector or through any other officer. Simply because the Government takes action through the Collector of the same district it cannot be said that the revision is not maintainable. In a given case it may happen that the Government may direct the same officer to prefer revision. Even in such cases technically such revision application may be maintainable. But that is not the case here. Therefore it is