( 1 ) RULE. Mr. S. D. Talati, learned A. G. P. waives service of rule.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to filing of this petition are that one Shakaraji who was a co-sharer of land comprised in Block No. 215 admeasuring 2 acres 33 gunthas executed a Will on 1/03/1986 in favour of the present petitioner to the extent of his share therein. Said Shakaraji died on 7/10/1986. The petitioner has claimed mutation in the land records in his favour on the basis of the said Will. On 1/07/1987, the entry No. 1692 was amended to that effect. On 18-2-1989, the Deputy Collector initiated proceedings for revising the said alteration under the bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the "act of 1947" ). By Order dated 22/08/1989, the deputy Collector cancelled the entry No. 1692 on the ground that as the petitioner has acquired the land by way of a Will which has resulted in sub-division of the block in breach of the provisions of the Act of 1947 and as the legatee is also not an agriculturist to whom any transfer could be made in view of Sec. 63 of the bombay Tenancy Act, amendment in entry No. 1692 is liable to be cancelled.

( 3 ) THE petitioner appealed before the Collector against the said order. The collector rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner applied to the State government for revision. The State Government, vide its order dated 31-12-1992 found that deceased Shakaraji has made Will in favour of the petitioner land admeasuring 1. 25 bigas of his share in Block No. 215 and the petitioner has acquired the land as a successor of said Shakaraji. It further held that land is of a block and the petitioner has been granted land by dividing the block without previous permission required under the Act, which amounts to breach of Act of 1947 as well as the petitioner is not an agriculturist and before acquisition, no permission was sought under Sec. 63 of the Tenancy Act and it also is in breach of the Bombay tenancy Act. It agreed that deceased has right to make a Will in respect of his property but not so as to commit breach of any of the statutes. In that view of the matter, the revision was rejected on 21/12/1992.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED with the aforesaid orders, petitioner has filed Special Civil application No. 4928 of 1993 which was decided on 6/09/1994. The Court found that the respondent No. 1 in exercise of his revisional powers under Sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code has declared the adjoining piece of land not to be a fragement which is practically of similar in size meaning thereby the present piece of land may also not fall within the definition of fragment being of the same size of the adjoining land and released from the provisions of the Prevention of fragmentation Laws. As the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact the order was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to decide the revision afresh in the light of that order.

( 5 ) IN pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the revision of the petitioner was decided by impugned order dated 21/05/1988, affirming the previous order. It was pointed out to the revisional authority that block in question was of a joint tenancy and the deceased has willed only his share of the land in question to the petitioner and thus the petitioner became a joint tenant of the block in place of the deceased. No sub-division has taken place as the joint block has not so far been divided nor any attempt was made to divide the same. Therefore, no breach of the law relating to sub-division has occurred. The respondent authority agreed with the said contention. However, for the first time, the revisional authority raised doubt about the validity of Will that the purpose of the Will being to confer a status of an agriculturist on the petitioner who is alleged to be not agriculturist prior to the acquisition of the land through his testamentary disposition. On this ground, he found that as the petitioner was conferred