The provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 will not apply to lands which are converted into N. A. use with the permission of Collector/district Development Officer and the N. A. use of such lands has been commenced.

( 1 ) THE short point that arises in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the provisions of sections 63 and 84 C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (for short the Act) would apply to the land which has been permitted to be used for non-agricultural purpose under section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

( 2 ) ONE Shri Ranchhodbhai Bechardas was admittedly a deemed purchaser of the land under section 32 G of the Act bearing Survey No. 83/3 admeasuring OA-34 Gunthas at village Mota Varachcha. It is not in dispute that name of said Shri Ranchhodbhai was mutated in Entry No. 733 as the purchaser of the said land. The land is situated near Gamtal of village Nana Varachcha. Shri Ranchhodbhai made necessary application for converting the said land into non-agricultural use. The Assistant Collector Choryasi Prant Surat by his order dated March 18th 1972 granted the permission for the said land to be so used for non-agricultural purpose. Ranchhodbhai thereafter sold the land in question to original petitioner Ahmed Abdul Rahim Shaikh by a registered sale deed on June 8th 1972 When the petitioner became the owner of the said land the permission for non-agricultural use was cancelled by the Assistant Collector Choryasi Prant Surat by his order dated 3rd January 1973 The petitioner therefore challenged the said order- of cancellation of N. A. Permission before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by filing revision application No. TEN. B. A. 3/79. The Tribunal by its order dated September 7th 1974 remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector Choryasi Prant Surat since the applicant and Shri Ranchhodbhai the deemed purchaser of the land were not offered any opportunity of being heard in the matter before cancelling the N. A. Permission. It was contended that once the non-agricultural permission was granted nature of the land changed and the provisions of the Act were not applicable. It was also contended that there were no conditions in the N. A. Permission prohibiting the said Shri Ranchhodbhai from making any transfer of the land. It was also contended that in view of the non-agricultural permission having been granted in respect of the said land provisions of sec. 43 of the Act would not be applicable. Therefore there was no breach of any of the conditions attached to the non-agricultural use permission. The Revenue Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector to hear the parties afresh.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid revision application No 3/73 one Dahyabhai Devjibhai and 4 others sought to be impleaded as parties. The Tribunal therefore directed that the Assistant Collector may also hear said Shri Dahyabhai and others and thereafter decide whether they had any locus standi in the matter. The Assistant Collector Choryasi Prant Surat on the matter being remanded heard the parties including Shri Dahyabhai Devjibhai and four others. By the order dated October 10th 1978 Assistant Collector held that since Shri Dahyabhai Devjibhai and others had no locus standi they were not necessary parties. The said judgment and order was carried further to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by filing two revisional applications being Revision Application No. TEN. B. S. 261 and 289 of 1978. The Tribunal by its order dated Match 30 1979 again ordered to remand the matter for bringing the heirs of deceased Ranchhodbhai on record and consider the matter afresh if Dahyabhai Devjibhai and others were necessary and proper parties to the proceedings and also to decide if the question under the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act was involved. After the said remand the Assistant Collector came to the conclusion by his order dated August 11 1980 that said Shri Dahyabhai and others had no locus standi and were not necessary parties to the proceedings. The Assistant Collector however held that the sale entered into between Ranchhodbhai and the petitioner