1. The appellants, State authorities, have preferred this appeal from the judgment dated 14.3.2000 of learned single Judge of this Court, whereby circular dated 23.11.1998 is quashed and consequently notices at Annexures-I, J and K to the original petition, based on the aforesaid circular, are also quashed.

2. Respondent No.1 herein, a private limited company claiming to be in the profession of cultivation of agricultural land by scientific technology, approached this Court on the basis of the fact that somewhere in the year 1994-95 several such farming companies and land-owners had made an application for approval of registered sale of agricultural land; and on 06.02.1995, Deputy Collector had granted the necessary permission under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ( for short, the Act ) on several conditions. Earlier to that, the State Government had, on 20.5.1991, issued a letter to the Collector, Ahmedabad to state that in case of such private limited companies buying agricultural land, income of managing director should not be considered and permission should be granted under section 63 of the Act. Thereafter, by the impugned circular dated 23.11.1998, instructions were issued to all the Collectors to, in effect, hold that permission cannot be granted under the Act for transferring agricultural land to companies as they were not natural persons.

3. Learned single Judge has, in the impugned judgment, culled out the following two issues and pure questions of law for adjudication and resolution: 1. Whether the circular dated 23.11.1998 issued by the State Government is contrary to the provisions of the Bombay General Clauses Act and the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948?2. Whether the circular dated 23.11.1998 can be applied retrospectively so as to deprive the status of agriculturist as had already been conferred at the relevant time in accordance with the rules? Dwelling upon the definition of person as given in the Act, the Bombay General Clauses Act 1904 and the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 as also referring to the scheme of the Act, it was held that, for the purpose of holding the land, it is not necessary that it can be held only by a natural person and it can certainly be held even by a juristic person as a legal entity. The Court also held that in no case such executive circulars could be made applicable retrospectively. In order to appreciate the submissions of learned counsel against the backdrop of facts which are not in dispute, it would be advantageous to quote, as under, the relevant parts of the Act: The Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:An Act to amend the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and to make certain other provisions in regard to those lands.WHEREAS it is necessary to amend the law which governs the relations of landlords and tenants of agricultural lands;AND WHEREAS on account of the neglect of a landholder or disputes between a landholder and his tenants, the cultivation of his estate has seriously suffered, or for the purpose of improving the economic and social conditions of peasants or ensuring the full and efficient use of land for agriculture, it is expedient to assume management of estates held by landholders and to regulate and impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural lands, dwelling houses, sites and lands appurtenant thereto belonging to or occupied by agriculturists, agricultural labourers and artisans in the Province of Bombay and to make provisions for certain other purposes hereinafter appearing; it is hereby enacted as follows:- S.2 Definitions.In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context-(1) agriculture includes horticulture, the raising of crops, grass or garden produce, the use by an agriculturist of the land held by him or a part thereof for the grazing of his cattle, the use of any land, whether or not an appanage to rice o