K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, C.J. This petition has been preferred by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association and another seeking a declaration that Sees. 4 and 20 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957, insofar as they confer absolute unguided power in the matter of framing rules for appointment to the post of President of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by the State Government, are ultra vi res, unconstitutional, and also for a declaration that Rule 3(I) of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Rules, 1982, empowering to appoint Secretary to the Government of Gujarat as President of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, is ultra vires and void and also for a direction to fill up the post of President by a qualified Judicial Officer in consultation with the High Court under Art. 234 of the Constitution of India.

2. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') was established under Sec. 3(1) of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957, (for short 'the Act'). Sub-section (2) of Sec. 3 enables the State Government to appoint the President and such number of other members in the Tribunal. Section 4 empowers the State Government to lay down rules prescribing the qualifications of the President and other members constituting the Tribunal, the term of their office and their conditions of service. Section 20 of the Act empowers the State Government to frame rules in consistence with the provisions of the Act and for carrying out the provisions of the Act.

3. State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 20 of the Act framed Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Rules, 1982, (for short 'the Rules'), laying down the qualifications of the President and members of the Tribunal, period of their office, terms and conditions of their service and also qualifications of the Registrar and Deputy Registrars.

4. Mr. Jitendra M. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the power conferred on the State Government under Rule 3(i)(iii)(a) empowering it to appoint a Secretary to the Government as President of the Tribunal is ultra vires the rule making powers conferred on the State Government under Sec. 20 of the Act, and would defeat the purposes and object of the Act. Learned Counsel submitted that the above-mentioned rule empowers the Government to appoint a person who has no judicial experience as the President of the Tribunal, which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act as well as the purposes for which the Act was enacted, and has to be declared as unconstitutional. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal for all practical purposes discharges the functions of a Civil Court, and hence, it be treated as part of the judicial system, therefore, the appointment of the President of the Tribunal can be effected only after consulting the High Court under An. 234 of the Constitution.

5. Learned Counsel took us elaborately through the powers and functions conferred on the Tribunal under the Act as well as under various statutes enumerated in the First Schedule to the Act and other related legislations. Relevant provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, Forest Act, 1927, the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 and Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 were referred to. Learned Counsel submitted that the powers which are being exercised by the Tribunal were the powers once exercised by the Civil Courts and disputes which come up before are disputes of a civil nature. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has been entrusted with the duty of deciding the matters judiciously whether they are disputes between an individual and State or between' the individuals. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal is a Court for all practical purposes, and it performs the judicial functions of the State, therefore, the person who mans it should be a judicial officer. Learned Counsel submitted that the constitutional requirement of an independent judiciary must apply to all inst