Decided in Favour of :
Petitioner
Petition Allowed

R.M. Doshit, J.—These two petitions are preferred by the purchasers of the disputed lands against the common judgment and order dated 17.12.1991 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”] in Revision Applications No. TEN. B.A. 931 of 1983 and 936 of 1983.

2. The petitioners claim to be the agriculturists having lands at Village Vastana, Sokhda and Bherai of Taluka Matar. The petitioners purchased the disputed lands Block Nos. 52 and 38 of Village Lilapur, Taluka Dascroi from one Thakor Udaji Punaji, the Respondent No. 2 in Special Civil Application No. 4944 of 1992; and the disputed land Block No. 51 of Village Lilapur, Taluka Dascroi from one Badarji Varuji Thakor, the Respondent No. 2 in Special Civil Application No. 4961 of 1992.

3. It appears that both set of disputed lands were new tenure lands in the hands of the vendors Udaji Punaji Thakor and Badarji Varuji Thakor. Both the vendors applied to the Prant Officer, Viramgam under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for permission to sell the lands. The Prant Officer, by his order dated 17.01.1982 and 21.01.1982, granted such permission to the vendors Udaji Punaji and Badarji Varuji respectively on terms and conditions mentioned in the respective order including the condition to pay premium as assessed by the Prant Officer. Pursuant to the said permissions granted by the Prnat Officer, the disputed lands were sold to the petitioners herein by registered sale-deeds executed on 27.01.1982.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said permission granted under Section 43 of the Act, the State Government preferred the above-referred Revision Applications No. 931/1983 and 936/1983 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was, by impugned judgment and order, pleased to hold that the petitioners-purchasers did not have any land within 8 Kms. of the disputed lands. The petitioners, therefore, were not the agriculturists within the meaning of the Act. The permission to sell the disputed lands to the petitioners granted by the Prant Officer was illegal and ultra vires the Act. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the permission granted by the Prant Officer on 17.01.1982 and 21.01.1982 respectively. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions.

5. Mr. Pahwa has submitted that it is true that the petitioners did not own agricultural land within 8 Kms. of the disputed lands. He also admits that the sale of agricultural land to a non-agriculturist is prohibited under Section 63 of the Act. He, however, has submitted that such ban is not imposed under Section 43 of the Act. Besides, the ban, if any, is not absolute inasmuch as the Proviso to Section 63 of the Act empowers the Collector or an officer authorised by the State Government to grant permission for such sale on such conditions as may be prescribed. Mr. Pahwa has submitted that in absence of an absolute ban, the sale made in favour of the petitioners with the permission of the concerned authority could not have been held illegal or ultra vires the Act. He has further submitted that it is also true that the petitioners were not the agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. He has submitted that the petitioners did own agricultural lands at villages Vastana, Sokhda and Bherai of Matar Taluka. He has submitted that Clause (2) of Section 2 of the Act defined “agriculturist” to mean:

“a person who cultivates the land personally.” The words “to cultivate personally” are defined in Clause (6) of the Act to mean to cultivate land on one’s own account-

(i)..................................

(ii)...............................

(iii)..............................

being land, the entire area of which—

(a) is situate within the limits of a single village,

or

(b) is so situated that no piece of land is separated from another by a distance of more than five miles, or

(c) forms one compact block.”

He has submitted that the aforesaid t