( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the Circular dated 27. 05. 1992 issued by Section Officer, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar and consequentially praying for direction to the State officials to certify mutation Entry No. 5100 in respect of the lands in question effected in favour of the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE petition was admitted on 18. 10. 1994 and interim relief was granted in terms of para 11 (B) whereby the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned Circular was stayed by this Court.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and one Smt. Bhuriben Nagarji Desai had family relations and had mutual love and affection for each others families. On account of such relations between the two families, the said Smt. Bhuriben Nagarji Desai had decided to include the name of the petitioner in the will executed by her on 18. 05. 1992. By the said will, the said Smt. Bhuriben Nagarji Desai gave lands bearing Survey Nos. 712/1 and 707/6 of village Tukwada, Tal. Pardi, Dist. Bulsar to the petitioner. The said will was attested by witnesses as required by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Hindu Succession Act,1956. It is also the case of the petitioner that after the execution of the said will, the said Smt. Bhuriben Nagarji Desai expired on 07. 11. 1993 at village Tukwada, Tal. Pardi, Dist. Bulsar. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the said will, mutation entry No. 5100 was effected in village Form No. 6 in respect of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 712/1 and 707/6 in the name of the petitioner on 10. 11. 1993. It is also the case of the petitioner that after the death of the said Smt. Bhuriben Nagarji Desai, the Talati-cum-Mantri of village Tukwada had recorded statements of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Bhuriben Nagarji Desai wherein they had stated that they had no objection if the mutation entry was effected in the name of the petitioner in the village record and the said lands were to be transferred in the petitioners name.

( 4 ) IT is also the case of the petitioner that after the aforesaid entry was effected, the petitioner waited for certification of the aforesaid mutation entry effected in his favour in the revenue record. On inquiry, however, he came to know that the officers of the revenue department of the respondent State have refused to certify the said entry on the basis of Circular dated 27. 05. 1992 issued by the respondent to the Collectors asking them not to permit transfer of any land in favour of the non-agriculturists on the basis of the wills.

( 5 ) IT is this Circular issued by the State Government which is under challenge in the present petition.

( 6 ) MR. A. J. Patel, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Y. N. Ravani for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Circular runs counter to the expressed provisions of Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and also Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. He has further submitted that the mandate of law contained in the Indian Succession Act as well as the Tenancy Act could not have been nullified by issuing the impugned Circular. The impugned circular is ultravires of the Provisions of Section 59 of the Act of 1925, Section 30 of the Act of 1956 and Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, the said Circular is liable to be quashed and set aside. The action on the part of the respondent in refusing to certify the entry in favour of the petitioner is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the petitioners fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India and as such, it is liable to be quashed and set aside. The impugned circular suffers from the vice of total non-application of mind on the part of the respondent to the relevant pr