( 1 ) BY filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Collector, Jamnagar in revision Application No. 487 of 1989 which was confirmed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of gujarat in Revision Application No: SRD/1/1990. The petitioner is a resident of village Mota-Kalavad. At the relevant time, the petitioner was carrying on occupation of "vaidhya" in the aforesaid village. The petitioner wanted to purchase the piece of agricultural land. He, accordingly, entered into an agreement to purchase the piece of land bearing Survey No. 231/2 admeasuring Acres 8-04 Gunthas. Since the petitioner was not an agriculturist, he applied for permission to purchase the aforesaid agricultural land. The aforesaid application was made as per the provisions contained in Saurashtra ghadkhed Tenancy Settlement Agricultural Land Ordinance , 1949 [ hereinafter referred to as the "act" for short ]. As per the provisions contained in the said Act and rules, if a person who is not an agriculturist, intending to purchase an agricultural land, he is required to make an appropriate application before the Revenue Authority and one of the requirements is that the income of that person should be less that Rs. 5,000/- per annum. The deputy Collector, by his order dated 16. 12. 1986, came to the conclusion that income of the petitioner is less than rs. 5,000/- per annum and accordingly, he granted permission as required under the aforesaid Act, and more particularly, as per Section 54 and Rule 18 of the aforesaid Act. Before passing the aforesaid order, the deputy Collector has considered the report submitted by the Mamlatdar by way of spot inspection. The Deputy collector found that the petitioner is having agricultural equipments and is having experience of agricultural activities. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted such permission for the purpose of purchase of the aforesaid agricultural land and on the basis of the said permission, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by the transferor, by which, the petitioner has purchased the said land and document of sale dated 22nd December, 1986 executed between the parties is annexed to the petition at Annexure-B in the compilation. On the basis of the said permission, the petitioner started agricultural activities and even in the revenue records produced on record of the petition, the name of the petitioner is shown as occupier and cultivator of the land in question and accordingly, the petitioner commenced the agricultural activities from the year 1986 onwards. The Collector, Jamnagar, thereafter, initiated suo motu proceedings for cancelling the aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector by issuing notice to the petitioner dated 18. 8. 1989 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why such order should not be cancelled by taking the same in suo motu revision proceedings. Subsequently, the Collector after hearing the petitioner came to the conclusion that considering the fact that the petitioner is in a profession of "vaidhya (giving some domestic medicines to the patients), it can be easily inferred against the petitioner that his income must be more than Rs. 5,000/per annum as he must be getting Rs. 15-20 per day. The collector found that there is no reliable evidence to show that the petitioners income is less than rs. 5,0000/- as no evidence is produced by the petitioner to substantiate his say that his income is less than rs. 5,000/- per annum. The Collector came to the conclusion that logically it is not possible to believe that the income of the petitioner is less than rs. 5,000/ -. The Collector also found that as per the statement of the petitioner before the Circle Officer dated 24. 10. 1986, the petitioner is also doing agricultural activities from which also he must be earning and the petitioner has not produced any other evidence for such inc