1. The scope of the controversy being limited, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities is directed to waive service on behalf of the respondent authorities.

2. The petitioner is a Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (the BPT Act). The petitioner is owning various agricultural lands and is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act). Under a Deed registered on 06.08.2005 the petitioner purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No.830/P/1, admeasuring 0.29.34 hectors and Survey No.830/5, admeasuring 0.30.35 hectors, situated at Kanknol, Taluka Himatnagar, Dist. Sabarkantha. Necessary entries came to be mutated in revenue records on 20.04.2007 being Entry No.15737 in relation to the first parcel of land and Entry No.12972 of 20.09.2005 in relation to the second survey number.

3. The aforesaid mutation entries came to be cancelled by Mamlatdar, Himatnagar on the ground that there was breach of provisions of Section 63 of the Act and accordingly proceedings under Section 84C of the Act were initiated. The order dated 06.09.2007 made by the Mamlatdar was carried in appeal before Deputy Collector, who dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 14.11.2007. The petitioner preferred revision application before District Collector, Sabarkantha being Revision Application No.96 of 2007. Vide order dated 06.12.2008 the said authority rejected the revision application.

4. The reasons, which have weighed with the said authorities as appearing in the order, are : (i) That the various lands held by the petitioner-Trust in other districts are standing in the name of Pramukhshree Shastri Narayanswarupdasji Guru Yagnapurusdasji whereas the land in question has been purchased by the Trust, through the Power of Attorney Holder of the President and the Board of Trustees of the Trust; (ii) That there are no agricultural lands in the name of Power of Attorney Holder; (iii) That the petitioner is required to obtain permission under Section 63 of the Act from the Collector but no such permission has been obtained under Section 63 of the Act nor has the Trust obtained a certificate under Section 63 of the Act; (iv) Therefore, because the Trust is granted a certificate under Section 88B of the Act and is holding agricultural lands in other districts of the State it cannot be stated that there is no violation of provisions of the Act. The Collector further holds that if the submission made by the petitioner is accepted there would be no requirement to seek permission under Section 63 of the Act in the State of Gujarat. That every holder of certificate under Section 88B of the Act is required to obtain permission under Section 63 of the Act in relation to purchase of any other parcel of land, other than the land for which certificate under Section 88B of the Act has been granted. The revision application has been rejected accordingly with the aforesaid reasons.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Trust submitted that the entire approach of the respondent authorities is unwarranted in law considering the provisions of Section 63 of the Act. It was submitted that no sale is valid in favour of a non-agriculturist unless requisite permission is obtained which means that the purchaser has to be an agriculturist. In other words, according to the learned Senior Advocate, in a case where the transaction was between an agriculturist and an agriculturist Section 63 was not attracted and there was no question of the sale in question being treated as invalid. That as accepted by the Collector in the impugned order dated 06.12.2009 the Trust is already holding agricultural lands and is also a registered Trust holding certificate under Section 88B of the Act. Therefore, there is no requirement for the Trust to seek any permission under Sectio