( 1 ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenged the validity and legality of the show-cause notice dated April 14, 1983 under section 84c of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short,"the said Act") and also the show cause notice dated April 28,1983 at Annexure "e" issued to the petitioner No. 2 to show cause why the N. A. Permission granted in respect of the land in question on May 27, 1981 should not be revoked.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts giving rise to the petition may shortly be stated thus : the petitioner No. 2 was owner and occuplier of the agricultural land bearing survey No. 561 admeasuring 1 Acre 1 Guntha, situated in the sim of village limda in Vaghodia Taluka. It is not in dispute that the said land in an old tenue land. On an application by the petitioner No. 2, the Taluka Development officer, Vaghodia, by his order dated May 27, 1981 ordered to convert the land into non-agricultural one. It is the case of the petitioners that since that date, the land in question was being used for non-agricultural purpose and the petitioners paid non-agricultural charges to the State Government as fixed under the said N. A. order. The petitioner No. 2 by registered sale-deed sold said land to petitioner No. 1 on June 10, 1981. The petitioner no. 1 thereafter plotted out the said land into various small plots for the purpose of industry. The land has thus been divided into about 110 plots. The small plots No. 1 to 68 had been sold between July to December 1981 to various parties. Plots No. 69 to 85 were similarly sold in 1982 to various parties and plots No. 86 to 103 were sold in March 1983 to other parties and plots No. 104 to 109 were thus sold during May-June 1983. AH these transactions were made by registered sale deeds. Second respondent-Mamlatdar, Vaghodia, by the impugned show cause notice dated April 14, 1983 purported to be under section 84c of the bombay Tenancy Act, called upon, the petitioners to show cause why the acquisition or transfer of the lands in question should not be declared invalid , as there was a breach of section 63 of the Act and why the proceedings under section 84c of the Act should not be initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged this show cause notice under section 84c on the ground that the land in question was no longer agricultural land and the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act were not applicable to the land in dispute. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State, meanwhile, issued notice to the petitioner No. 2 to show cause why the N. A. permission granted on May 27, 1981 should not be cancelled for the reasons stated in the notice. The petitioners have also challenged this notice dated April 28,1983.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the Taluka Development Officer, Vaghodia, has accorded n. A. Permission to the petitioners on May 27, 1981 by his order at Annexure "b" to the petition. The said land, after being converted into non-agricultural one, was divided into several subplots and had changed hands. By the Government Resolution dated March 31, 1981 at Annexure "a" to the petition, the Government of Gujarat in Industries, Mine and power Department provided relaxation to Vaghodia Taluka, among other places, for the purpose of being eligible for full incentive schemes as would be enforced from time to time by the Government. The Government considered the Vaghodia Taluka and other talukas as underdeveloped Talukas of backwards Districts. It appears that in view of the said policy as relaxation, the several industrial units purchased the subplots of the lands in question.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contention of Mr. J. M. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, that the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act were not applicable to the lands in question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the act. Section 2 (8) defines "land" as und