A. M. AHMADI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Babiben purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 78 admeasuring 14 acres 22 gunthas of village Garambdi Taluka Wav on 31st May 1975 for Rs. 6 0 from respondent Manabhai Narsangbhai Patel since deceased. Admittedly while purchasing this land no permission of the Collector or an officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf was obtained before the execution of the sale deed. The question which therefore arose for consideration was whether the sale in favour of the petitioner was invalid in view of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter called the Act ). The Mamlatdar came to the conclusion that the petitioner was an agriculturist and therefore it was not obligatory to secure the permission of the Collector or the authorised officer before the purchase of the land in question. He therefore upheld the sale transaction by his order dated 15th July 1977 Exhibit 8. The Deputy Collector Tharad however entertained some doubt in this behalf and initiated suo motu proceedings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction conferred upon him by the statute and by his order dated 31st March 1978 he came to the conclusion that the sale was invalid inasmuch as the petitioner was not an agriculturist and had not obtained the prior permission of the Collector or the authorised officer for the purchase of the land. Against this order of the Deputy Collector the petitioner preferred a Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 435 of 1978 (Ahmedabad) which was disposed of in her favour by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 3rd August 1978 The Revenue Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was an agriculturist and hence the Deputy Collector was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the Mamlatdar. The Revision Application was allowed and the order of the Deputy Collector was set aside and the order of the Mamlatdar was restored. It appears that thereafter on the application of the original owner Manabhai Narsangbhai Patel the order was reviewed by the Revenue Tribunal on 25th April 1979. By the said order the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not an agriculturist and hence the sale was invalid as hit by Section 63 of the Act. It is against that order that the present petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution. By the said order the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not an agriculturist and hence the sale was invalid as hit by Section 63 of the Act. It is against that order that the present petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) SECTION 63 insofar as it is relevant for our purpose reads as under:"63 (1) Save as provided in this Act - (a) no sale gift exchange or lease of any land or interest therein shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist or who being an agriculturist cultivates personally land not less than the ceiling area whether as an owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant or who is not an agricultural labourer. Provided that the Collector or an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may grant permission for such sale gift exchange lease or mortgage or for such agreement on such conditions as may be prescribed: provided further that no such permission shall be granted where land is being sold to a person who is not an agriculturist for agricultural purpose if the annual income of such person from other sources exceeds five thousand rupees. " The term agriculturist is defined in Section 2 (2 ). to mean a person who cultivates land personally. The expression to cultivate with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means to till or husband the land for the purpose of raising or improving agricultural produce whether by manual labour or by means of cattle or machinery or to carry on any agricultural operation thereon; (Section 2 (5) ). We then come to Section 2 (6) which defines the expression to cultivate personally as: to cultivate land on ones own account by ones own labour or by the labour of any member of ones family or under the personal supervision of oneself or any member of ones family by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share being land the entire area of which is situate within the limits of a single village or is so situated that no piece of land is separated from another by a distance of more than five miles or forms one compact block. It is clear from the above provisions of the Act that the petitioner in order to escape the mischief of Section 63 of the Act must show that she was an agriculturist at the date of the purchase of the land in question. ( 3 ) THE case put up by the petitioner is that her father as well as grandfather were agriculturists. Her father expired leaving behind agricultural land which she and her brothers inherited in law. In respect of land bearing Survey No. 804 of Wav admeasuring about 1 acre 18 gunthas a mutation entry No. 236 dated 7th January 1971 came to be made and she and her brothers have been shown as the joint `kabjedars of that land. That land is indisputably being cultivated by her brothers Chhotalal and Kantilal as family members on behalf of all the co-owners thereof There is no dispute so far as the correctness of this entry No. 236 dated 7th January 1971 is concerned. It is therefore obvious from this entry that the petitioner is a co-owner with her brothers so far as Survey No. 804 of Wav is concerned. It is her case that the land is being cultivated by her two brothers for and on behalf of all the co-owners-Kabjedars and therefore so far as she is concerned she can be said to be personally cultivating the land within the meaning of Section 2 (6) (ii) of the Act. She has indisputably proprietary interest in the land bearing Survey No. 804 of Wav. Her interest in that land is joint with that of her two brothers Chhotalal and Kantilal. This undivided interest in the land is being looked after by her two brothers inasmuch as the two brothers are cultivating the land for and on behalf of all the Kabjedars. That being so the question is whether the petitioner could be said to be cultivating the land personally by the labour of a family member (s ). The Mamlatdar reached the conclusion that since the interest of the petitioner in the land bearing Survey No. 804 was being looked after by her brothers who were cultivating the land for and on behalf of all the joint Kabjedars there could be no doubt that she was personally cultivating the land within the meaning of Section 2 (6) (ii) of the Act. He therefore took the view that she was an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2 (2) and hence was entitled to purchase the agricultural land in question without obtaining prior permission of the Collector or authorised officer as required by Section 63 of the Act. In taking this view the Mamlatdar thought that the fact that the petitioner was married to a shop-keeper and was living in another village was not at all relevant. In this view that he took he upheld the sale The Deputy Collector however 847 in suo motu proceedings held that after marriage a Hindu woman ceases to be a member of the joint family of her father and merely because her name is entered in the revenue records by entry No. 236 dated 7th January 1971 as one of the heirs of her deceased father she cannot be considered to be personally cultivating the land bearing Survey No. 804 and hence the sale in her favour under the registered document dated 31st May 1975 is invalid as being violative of Section 63 of the Act. The Revenue Tribunal by its first order dated 3rd August 1978 came to the conclusion that Survey No. 804 originally belonged to Tribhovandas the grandfather of the petitioner and on his death it was mutated in the names of nine persons who inherited the property and thus the petitioner became a joint holder/owner of that land and hence the Mamlatdar was right in holding that she was an agriculturist at the date when she purchased the land in question under the document of 31st May 1975. The contention that because the applicant was not staying with the members of her fathers family she could not be said to be cultivating the land personally was rejected and the Revenue Tribunal held that simply because she is not residing with the members on her fathers family she does not lose her proprietary title in the land. The contention that because the applicant was not staying with the members of her fathers family she could not be said to be cultivating the land personally was rejected and the Revenue Tribunal held that simply because she is not residing with the members on her fathers family she does not lose her proprietary title in the land. The Revenue Tribunal therefore upheld the order of the Mamlatdar but on review the Revenue Tribunal after referring to the provisions alluded above came to the conclusion that although the petitioner is entitled to a share in Survey No. 804 merely by inheriting an agricultural land she cannot be said to be cultivating it personally because the other major sharers of land are cultivating the land and along with their shares share of the applicant is being looked after. This observation of the Revenue Tribunal makes it abundantly clear that the other sharers while cultivating the land are also looking after the petitioners undivided share in the land. The Tribunal then proceeds to observe that admittedly she does not stay in the village and since her marriage thirty years ago she is staying in another village and her husband being a shop-keeper who has never cultivated land she by merely inheriting a share in the agricultural property cannot claim to be an agriculturist. With respect this line of reasoning betrays confusion. The Tribunal then proceeds to refer to a judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1199 of 1966 decided on 18th June 1970 (Per J. B. Mehta J.) wherein it is observed that the word family must be construed in a wider sense to include all persons related by blood or marriage but brushes aside this observation on the plea that it relates to the interpretation of Section 4 of the Act. Reference is then made to a Division Bench judgment in Special Civil Application No. 15 of 1962 and after extracting a paragraph therefrom the Tribunal proceeds to observe that even brothers can be considered as deemed tenants of the land of the sister. Now that was also a case under Section 4 of the Act but the Tribunal relying on the passage extracted from the judgment held that since brothers can be tenants of sisters land the sister cannot be an agriculturist. Now that was also a case under Section 4 of the Act but the Tribunal relying on the passage extracted from the judgment held that since brothers can be tenants of sisters land the sister cannot be an agriculturist. It is on this line of reasoning that in review the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not an agriculturist and hence the sale was in contravention of Section 63 of the Act. ( 4 ) FROM the facts stated above it is clear that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was a joint owner of an agricultural piece of land bearing Survey No. 804 situate at Wav. No doubt she inherited a share in the land on the 848 demise of her father and grandfather. It cannot be disputed that she has an interest in the land as her name appears as one of the owners under the mutation entry No. 236 dated 7th January 1971. It is nobodys case that the land was being cultivated by her brothers as tenants of herself and the other joint owners. No such case was ever put up before the authorities below. On the contrary the Tribunal itself held that her brothers were cultivating the land and along with their shares share of the applicant/petititioner was being looked after. That means that the brothers were cultivating the land for and on behalf of the joint Kabjedars and not as tenants. The observation on which the Tribunal has relied as found in the judgment of the Division Bench in Special Civil Application No. 15 of 1962 reads as under:"the principal contention of the petitioner was that respondents 2 to 4 being her brothers and there being no evidence of a lease in their favour they were not entitled to contend that they were cultivating the land as tenants and therefore must be held to be her managers. But this contention is upon an assumption that because they were her brothers they could not be the tenants of the land. There is no warrant for such an assumption". Relying on this observation the Tribunal came to the conclusion that on an analogy of the reasoning it could be said that the brothers were deemed tenants of the sisters land. There is no warrant for such an assumption". Relying on this observation the Tribunal came to the conclusion that on an analogy of the reasoning it could be said that the brothers were deemed tenants of the sisters land. By this what the Tribunal desired to convey was that the brothers Chhotalal and Kantilal were cultivating the land as tenants of the petitioner and other co-owners. While it is true that brothers can be tenants of property owned by a sister in the absence of positive evidence in that behalf and in the absence of a specific contention to that effect such an assumption must be brushed aside as wholly unwarranted. In the absence of a claim of tenancy put forward by the brothers it is difficult to understand how the Tribunal thought it necessary to refer to the extracted observations. Besides in those proceedings an alternative plea of tenancy was raised by the brothers unlike in the present proceedings. The Tribunal therefore committed a serious error in setting up a case not pleaded by the brothers and then drawing an unwarranted analogy on the basis of the observations extracted earlier. ( 5 ) IT is thus clear that the petitioner had an undivided share in land bearing Survey No. 804 situate in Wav. So far as her interest in the land was concerned it was being looked after by the brothers who were cultivating the land It was not contended before the authorities below nor was it contended before me that the brothers were cultivating the land without the express permission of the petitioner. No case of ouster has been pleaded and proved. The Mamlatdar was therefore right in taking the view that the undivided interest/share of the petitioner in Survey No. 804 was being looked after by her brothers meaning thereby that her brothers were cultivating the land on her behalf as well as on behalf of the other co-sharers. ( 6 ) THE next question is whether in the aforesaid fact-situation it can be said that the petitioner was cultivating the land personally by the labour of any member of her family. In other words where the land is being cultivated by the brothers for and on behalf of the sister and at her behest can it be said that the land is being cultivated by the labour of a family member ? In other words where the land is being cultivated by the brothers for and on behalf of the sister and at her behest can it be said that the land is being cultivated by the labour of a family member ? The Revenue Tribunal has taken the view that as the petitioner is 849 not staying in village Wav and as she is married to a shop-keeper she cannot be said to be cultivating the land through the labour of her family members. According to the Tribunal a woman married to a non-agriculturist and living in another village can never be an agriculturist even if she has inherited a share in agricultural land situate in a nearby village. To explain away the nature of cultivation by the brothers the Tribunal after reproducing the observations extracted earlier proceeds to say that even brothers can be considered deemed tenants of the sisters land. There is no basis for this strained reasoning. ( 7 ) THE term family is not defined to limit its scope and application. It is in this context that referring to the word family J. B. Mehta J. observed in Special Civil Application No. 1199 of 1966 decided on 18th June 1970 as under:"it is in that context that the expression family must be construed in wider sense to include all persons related by blood or marriage and brother or brothers sons would be family members". It is true that J. B. Mehta J. was considering a case in relation to Section 4 but that should not make any difference since he was considering the term family and it is in that context that he observed that it must be construed in a wider sense to include all persons related by blood or marriage. I am in respectful agreement with this observation made by J. B. Mehta J. Merely because a woman marries in another family she does not cut off or sever her relations with her family of birth so that her relations by blood cease to be her family members. On marriage a woman goes to her husbands house but does that mean her relations with her paternal family are totally snapped? Does it mean that her brothers cease to be her family members? On marriage a woman goes to her husbands house but does that mean her relations with her paternal family are totally snapped? Does it mean that her brothers cease to be her family members? Is it permissible and necessary to give such a narrow meaning to the words any member of ones family used in Section 2 of the Act particularly when the Act does not manifest an intention to restrict its scope and amplitude? I am of the view that the expression must be construed in a wider sense as observed by J. B. Mehta J. I am therefore of the view that her brothers who were cultivating the land on her behalf as well as on behalf of the other co-owners were doing so as her family members. In this view that I take I think the Tribunal was wrong in reversing its earlier view in a review application. The Tribunals approach that a woman whose husband is a shop-keeper can never be an agriculturist must be stated to be rejected. If a woman is an agriculturist before marriage she cannot cease to be an agriculturist merely because she marries a shop-keeper. A woman is entitled to her own occupation distinct from that of her husband. She does not lose her identity on marriage she is entitled to pursue her own occupation or avocation including that of an agriculturist. I am therefore of the view that in review the Tribunal betrayed a very narrow approach. ( 8 ) THE further observation that the applicant cannot purchase a land as an agriculturist without the permission of the Collector under Section 43 of the Act is clearly untenable as Section 4 of the Act is not at all attracted in the present proceedings. Section 43 imposes a restriction on transfer of land purchased by a tenant under Sections 17b 32 32 32 32 32 or 43-ID or sold to any person under Section 32-P or Section 64 which is not the case here. Therefore this stray observation made by the Tribunal is not warranted. 850 9 For the above reasons this petition succeeds. The order passed by the Deputy Collector on 31st March 1978 and confirmed by the Tribunal on 25 April 1979 must therefore be set aside and the order of the Mamlatdar dated 15th July 1977 must be restored. Therefore this stray observation made by the Tribunal is not warranted. 850 9 For the above reasons this petition succeeds. The order passed by the Deputy Collector on 31st March 1978 and confirmed by the Tribunal on 25 April 1979 must therefore be set aside and the order of the Mamlatdar dated 15th July 1977 must be restored. The rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Order accordingly. .