( 1 ) [his Lordships after stating the facts of the case, further observed :] xxx xxx xxx

( 2 ) IN view of the rival contentions advanced at the Bar, the question which falls for the consideration of the Court is, whether the occupant is primarily liable for unauthorised use of the land by himself or by his tenant or the person holding under or through him. Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 provides that an occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture, is entitled by himself, his servants, tenants, agents or other legal representatives to erect farm buildings, construct wells or tanks, make any other improvements thereon for the better cultivation of the land or its more convenient use for the purpose aforesaid, but, if any occupant wishes to use the land or any part thereof for any other purpose, he has to obtain necessary permission from the Collector. Section 66 of the Bombay land Revenue Code makes provision for penalty for using land without permission of the Collector and it reads as under :"if any such land be so used without the permission of the Collector being first obtained, or before the expiry of the period prescribed by Sec. 65, the occupant and any tenant or other person holding under or through him shall be liable to be summarily evicted by the Collector from the land so used and from the entire field or survey number of which it may form a part, and the occupant shall also be liable to pay, in addition to the new assessment which may be leviable under the provisions of Sec. 48 for the period during which the said land has been so used such fine as the Collector may, subject to the general orders of the State Government, direct. Any tenant of any occupant or any other person holding under or through an occupant, who shall without the occupants consent use any such land for any such purpose and thereby render the said occupant liable to the penalties aforesaid shall be responsible to the said occupant in damages. "a bare reading of Sec. 66 makes it abundantly clear that, if any land referred to in sec. 65, is used for any purpose other than the purpose for which the said land is assessed, or held without the permission of the Collector being first obtained, then the occupant is liable to pay the new assessment leviable under Sec. 48 as well as the conversion tax leviable under Sec. 67a of the Code. Clause (a) of Sec. 66 in terms lays down that the occupant and any tenant or other person holding under or through him shall be liable to be summarily evicted by the Collector from the land so used and from the entire survey number or sub-division of the survey number of which it may form a part, whereas clause (b) of Sec. 66 provides that the occupant shall also be liable to pay for the period during which the said land has been so used such fine as the Collector may direct. Therefore, Sec. 66 not only makes servants, tenants, agents or other legal representatives of the occupant liable for payment of new assessment, conversion tax and penalty, but also makes the occupant liable to pay the new assessment leviable under Sec. 48 as well as the conversion tax and penalty which may be determined by the Collector. The submission that respondent nos. 4 to 10, as trespassers, have unauthorisedly used the land for non-agricultural purpose and therefore, fine could not have been imposed on the petitioners as occupants of the land is devoid of merits. Admittedly, the petitioners have executed an agreement to sell the land in favour of the respondents and inducted them into possession of land. Though the respondents have not acquired title to the land, they cannot be treated as trespassers. In fact, respondents Nos. 4 to 8 will have to be treated as persons holding the land under or through the petitioners. It is evident that the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were permitted a co-operative society to be formed and respondent No. 10 who is a builder has constructed residential units on