( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is a registered Company under the Companies Act, 1956. Its case is that being desirous to be an agriculturist and so as to introduce Drip Irrigation System, it moved an application for the purpose of permission under Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which will be hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act. The permission is said to have been applied for under several Circulars issued by the State Government including the directions dated 20th May 1991. The State of Gujarat had issued instructions to the respondent no. 2, i. e. the Collector, Mehsana, to take into consideration the income of the Company and the net income of the Managing Director of the Company. The application moved by the petitioner was for purchase of several pieces of lands with a view to introduce the Drip Irrigation System and such permission was granted by the Deputy Collector, exercising powers of the Collector by order dated 6th February 1995. A copy of this order has been annexed with the petition as Annexure. B. Pursuant to the aforesaid permission, the petitioner and other Companies entered into various sale deeds as per the details given in Annexure. C. On purchase of the land in question, the Companies were inducted and the mutation entries were effected in the revenue records. One mutation entry no. 7943 was certified by the competent authority on 21. 2. 1995 and the copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure. D. The other mutation entry was effected in the records being entry no. 946 which was certified on 21. 7. 1995, i. e. Annexure. E with the petition. It is further the case of the petitioner that all the Companies have been cultivating the land in question and that the respondent no. 1 had initiated the proceedings against some other Companies in respect of the permission obtained by other Companies. When the matter reached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by way of revision application no. TEN/ 473 and 475 of 1975, the Tribunal by judgment dated 20th March 1997 held that the permission had already been acted upon and unless there was violation of the conditions, it would not be proper and appropriate on the part of the State Government to initiate any proceedings against the Companies. According to the averments made by the petitioner, this judgment of the Revenue Tribunal has attained finality. The respondent no. 1 State of Gujarat issued instructions to the Collector conveying that the State of Gujarat had decided to grant permission as per the judgment rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and such communication as was sent to the Collector, Ahmedabad has been placed on record as Annexure. G with the petition.

( 2 ) IT is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner Company spent money on the improvement of the land and for cultivation of the land as per the conditions which were indicated in the order, but suddenly the respondent no. 1 issued Circular dated 23rd November 1998, a copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure. H and instructions have also been issued to several officers functioning under the provisions of the Tenancy Act that only a biological person should be considered to be a person within the meaning of the definition of person occurring in Sec. 2 (11) of the Tenancy Act. On the basis of the aforesaid Circular issued by the State Government, the Mamlatdar, Kalol, issued notices to the petitioner under Sec. 84 (c) of the Tenancy Act directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the sale in question that had taken place after the permission that was obtained should not be held to be violative of the provisions of Sec. 84 (c) in view of the Circular dt: 23. 11. 98. A copy of such notice as issued by the Mamlatdar has been annexed with the petition as Annexure. I. Another notice of the same date, i. e. 8th December 1998 was issued by the Mamlatdar, a copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexu