G. T. NANAVATI, S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) ONE Shankerbharthi Jalambharthi held survey No. 10 of village Pepli of Palanpur Taluka in Banaskantha District as a `pasayata land. With effect from 1st August 1955 the Pasayata tenure was abolished by virtue of the provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act for the sake of brevity) Under sec. 6 the land in question could be regranted to its original holder if he paid six times the assessment on or before 31st July 1960. On 15th July 1957 an unregistered and unstamped sale deed in respect of the land in question was executed by Shankerbharthi in favour of the petitioner. The total consideration for the transaction was Rs. 1 125 ( 2 ) THE original petitioner is the adopted son of Shankerbharthi. It is the case of the purchaser that he had paid full consideration to Shankerbharthi and that Shankerbharthi had parted with possession of the land in question to him. Since 1961 the purchaser has been shown in revenue records as the cultivator of the land in question. By order dated 13th June 1966 the land in question was regranted under sec. 6 to Hirabharthi the adopted son of Shankerbharthi who died in 1963. The purchaser who is the appellant before us applied for regularisation of sale in his favour and his possession. He made that application on 22nd November 1968 to the Deputy Collector who called for the report of the Mamlatdar. On 8th March 1969 Deputy Collector made an order regularizing the sale and possession of the purchaser. Hirabharthi appealed against that order to the Collector. The Collector allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Deputy Collector because Hirabharthi was not heard by the Deputy Collector before he made his order dated 8th March 1969. The Deputy Collector upon remand heard Hirabharthi and regularized the sale in his favour and his possession of the land in question. Hirabharthi appealed against that order to the Collector who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order made by the Deputy Collector. Hirabharthi challenged that order in an application which he made to the Special Secretary to the Government of Gujarat. After hearing the parties the Special Secretary confirmed the order and dismissed the application made by Hirabharthi. Hirabharthi appealed against that order to the Collector who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order made by the Deputy Collector. Hirabharthi challenged that order in an application which he made to the Special Secretary to the Government of Gujarat. After hearing the parties the Special Secretary confirmed the order and dismissed the application made by Hirabharthi. ( 3 ) THAT order was challenged by Hirabharthi in Special Civil Application No. 1443 of 1972. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition recorded the conclusion that there was no valid transfer of the land in question in favour of the purchaser. He therefore quashed the orders made by the revenue authorities and allowed the writ petition. It is that order which is challenged by the purchaser in this appeal. ( 4 ) THE only contention which has been raised before us in this appeal is that the sale by Shankerbharthi in favour of the purchaser and the latters possession ought to have been regularized because Shankerbharthi had sold the land to the purchaser and that therefore the latter bad become the occupant of the land in question. ( 5 ) IN order to examine this contention it is necessary to turn to the provisions of sec. 6 of the Abolition Act. It inter alia provides as follows :"in the case of an alienated land held under a community service inam " (a) if such land is in the actual possession of the alienee or in possession of a person holding through or from him other than an inferior holder such alienee and (B) if such land is in the possession of an inferior holder such inferior holder. shall be primarily liable to the State Government for the payment of land revenue due in respect of the land held by him and shall be entitled to all the rights and shall be liable to all the obligations in respect of such land as an occupant under the Code or the rules made thereunder". There are two provisos appended to sec. 6. The first proviso is not material for the purpose of the present case. We shall be shortly turning to the second proviso. ( 6 ) NOW if the purchaser was an inferior holder he would be entitled to occupancy rights in his favour. Let us therefore see whether he was an inferior holder. 6. The first proviso is not material for the purpose of the present case. We shall be shortly turning to the second proviso. ( 6 ) NOW if the purchaser was an inferior holder he would be entitled to occupancy rights in his favour. Let us therefore see whether he was an inferior holder. The expression inferior holder has been defined by sec. 2 (1) (xi) of the Abolition Act in the following terms":inferior holder means a person who is in possession of an alienated land not on payment of rent but on payment of assessment in cash or kind to the alienee and includes a person holding such land through or from such person". Alienee has been defined by sec. 2 (1) (iii) of the Abolition Act in the following terms" alienee means the holder of an alienation and includes his cosharer recognized as such for the purpose of such alienation". There is no doubt about the fact that as the holder of the land under Pasayata tenure Shankerbharthi was the alienee. So far as the purchaser is concerned it is not his case that he held the land on payment of assessment in cash or kind to Shankerbharthi. Obviously therefore he could not be an inferior holder. Therefore under clause (b) of sec. 6 of the Abolition Act he could not be an occupant of the land in question. ( 7 ) LET us now turn to clause (a) and find out whether by virtue of the provisions contained therein he could be an occupant of the land in question. The first requirement of clause (a) of sec. 6 is that the land must be in actual possession of a person holding through or from an alienee who must not be an inferior holder. We have already held that the purchaser was not an inferior holder. Was he in actual possession of the land through or from Shankerbharthi ? It appears from the record that Shankerbharthi had inducted him into the land in question. If that was so what is the consequence thereof ? The only consequence which followed therefrom was that it was not he who got the occupancy rights but it was the alienee or Shankerbharthi who became the occupant of the land in question. Therefore by virtue of the provisions contained in the principal part of sec. If that was so what is the consequence thereof ? The only consequence which followed therefrom was that it was not he who got the occupancy rights but it was the alienee or Shankerbharthi who became the occupant of the land in question. Therefore by virtue of the provisions contained in the principal part of sec. 6 irrespective of the fact that the purchaser was put in possession of the land in question by Shankerbharthi the latter and upon his death his adopted son Hirabharthi became the occupant of the land in question. He therefore became primarily liable to the State Government for payment of land revenue in respect of the land in question and also became entitled to all the rights and liable to all the obligations of the land in question as an occupant. ( 8 ) SECOND proviso to sec. 6 is important for the present case. It carves out an exception. It provides as follows :"provided further that if such land under the terms of alienation was not alienable except with the permission of a competent authority such land shall not be transferable or partible by metes and bounds without the previous sanction of the Collector and except on payment of such amount as the State Government may by general or special order determine". ( 9 ) THE first question which arises is whether under the terms of the Pasayata tenure was the land in question inalienble except with the permission of the competent authority ? It has been recorded by the revenue authorities that under the terms of Pasayata tenure Shankerbharthi could not alienate the land in question. In our opinion therefore it was inalienable. if it was inalienable was it alienated by Shankerbharthi to the purchaser ? And if he transferred it what was the consequence which followed and what rights did a purchaser get ? ( 10 ) NOW second proviso to sec 6 provides that the land which is inalienable shall not be transferable or partible by metes and bounds without the previous sanction of the Collector and except on payment of such amount as the State Government may by general or special order determine. There is no dispute that Shankerbharthi had not obtained the previous sanction of the Collector before he executed the unregistered deed of sale in favour of the purchaser. There is no dispute that Shankerbharthi had not obtained the previous sanction of the Collector before he executed the unregistered deed of sale in favour of the purchaser. Obviously therefore no question of his paying to the State Government such amount as was determined by general or special order arose. However the question which has been argued by Mr. Zaveri is this. Did Shankerbharthi transfer the land in question to the purchaser ? In support of his contention he has argued that execution of an unregistered document of sale disputed by Hirabharthi could not amount to transfer and could not be made the basis for recording any finding. So far as the unstamped character of the document was concerned it has been rectified because in course of the proceedings before the subordinate authorities the document was impounded and penalty of Rs. 100. 00 and an additional stamp duty of Rs. 33. 00 totalling at Rs. 133. 00 were paid. Therefore unstamped character of the document cannot now be pleaded to show that there was no transfer. However two facts require to be noted very seriously. Firstly Hirabharthi disputes the very execution of the document in question. Secondly it is unregistered. Indisputably the consideration for the transaction exceeded Rs. 100. 00. In our opinion by an unregistered title deed the land in question could not have been transferred to the purchaser. Secondly it could not have been made the basis of recording any finding because Hirabharthi has been disputing its execution. Therefore the disputed execution of the document and its unregistered character could not transfer the land in question to the purchaser. The argument which Mr. Zaveri has raised indeed proceeds on the assumption that transfer within the meaning of the second proviso to sec. 6 means a legal transfer of title and nothing else. ( 11 ) MISS Shah who appears on behalf of the purchaser has tried to argue that the transfer within the meaning of sec. 6 only implies a change of hands or transfer of possession. In that behalf she has relied upon sec. 135c of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 6 means a legal transfer of title and nothing else. ( 11 ) MISS Shah who appears on behalf of the purchaser has tried to argue that the transfer within the meaning of sec. 6 only implies a change of hands or transfer of possession. In that behalf she has relied upon sec. 135c of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. It provides as under :"any person acquiring by succession survivorship inheritance partition purchase mortgage gift lease or otherwise any right as holder occupant owner mortgagee landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of the rent or revenue thereof shall report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the village accountant within three months from the date of such acquisition and the said village accountant shall at once give a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such report to the person making it:provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified his guardian or other person having charge of his property shall make the report to the village accountant:provided further that any person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document shall be exempted from the obligation to report to the village accountant". IT is not necessary to reproduce the two Explanations to sec. 135c as they are not relevant for the purpose of this case. The second proviso to sec. 135 in terms states that a person who acquires a right by virtue of a registered document is exempt from the obligation to report to the village accountant the transaction in question. ( 12 ) STRESSING the second proviso Miss Shah has argued that for the purpose of revenue records there can be a transaction of transfer by an unregistered document because according to her if no such transaction took place the provisions of sec. 135c would be purely redundant. Sec. 135c in terms refers to purchase as well as gift. So far as the construction of sec. 135c is concerned it appears to us in the context of what has been provided by second proviso to sec. 135c that there can be an unregistered transaction of sale under which possession may be transferred. However we do not think that the transfer contemplated by second proviso to sec. 6 of the Abolition Act merely means transfer of possession. In our opinion it contemplates transfer of title. 135c that there can be an unregistered transaction of sale under which possession may be transferred. However we do not think that the transfer contemplated by second proviso to sec. 6 of the Abolition Act merely means transfer of possession. In our opinion it contemplates transfer of title. That is why the second proviso has used such expressions as the terms of alienation and alienable. The transferability or otherwise of a land has got to be judged in terms of its alienability and not in terms of transfer of possession. We are therefore unable to hold that in the context of the provisions of sec. 135 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code second proviso to sec. 6 should be construed so as to mean mere transfer of possession and not necessarily anything more. Since we are of the opinion that what was prohibited under the Pasayata tenure was the alienability or the transfer of land meaning thereby the transfer of title did Shankerbharthi transfer the land in question to the purchaser ? We are unable to hold that he did so firstly because the execution of the document itself has been disputed by Hirabharthi and secondly because an unregistered document evidencing the transaction for a consideration exceeding Rs. 100 could not bring about legal transfer of title to the purchaser. If Shankerbharthi therefore did not transfer the title to the land in question to the purchaser it cannot be said that he had violated the terms of his tenure. Since he did not do so it cannot be said that the grant of land made to him by the State was forfeited and that the land was resumed by it as a consequence thereof. Since it did not happen it cannot also be said that it was granted de novo to the purchaser. Indeed if he had legally transferred the land in question to the purchaser it could have been said that he had violated the term of his tenure and that therefore the land in question was for feited to the State was resumed by it and was granted to the purchaser de novo by regularizing the sale in his favour. ( 13 ) WE now turn to the two Resolutions bearing on the subject. ( 13 ) WE now turn to the two Resolutions bearing on the subject. Resolution dated 11th June 1968 inter alia stated that the inams such as one in the instant case were granted on condition that service to the community was rendered by the grantee and that they were resumable by the State for non-performance of service or for alienation without permission or otherwise. The question of rationalising the orders then existing relating to regrant was considered by the State Government. Having considered all the factors the State Government laid down that the land held by the holder of service inam lands should be regranted for agricultural purposes to the alienee on payment of an occupancy price equal to six multiples of assessments on inalienable and impartible tenure. It further laid down that where such land had been transferred for agricultural purposes by a tenure holder before it was regranted to him the present holder should pay 20 times the assessment for conversion of the land into old tenure. It further provided that the present holder should also pay a fine not exceeding Rs. 50. 00 for the unauthorized transaction and that the cases decided prior to these orders should not be reopened. The next resolution bearing on the subject is dated 5th August 1968. It provided that where the lands were transferred for agricultural purposes by the holders of the service Inam lands after they were regranted the present holder should pay 20 times the assessment for conversion of the land into old tenure. It also provided for imposition of a fine for entering into an unauthorized transaction. Lastly it provided that the cases decided prior to the said orders should not be reopened. These two resolutions clearly provide for regularisation of unauthorised transactions in agricultural land before they were regranted and after they were regranted to alienees. These two resolutions have no application to the instant case because they pertain to lands which were transferred for agricultural purposes to other persons meaning thereby that the title to such lands was transferred. We are unable to think that what the two resolutions provide for is larger in ambit than what sec. 6 of the Abolition Act provides for or what the terms of the Pasayata tenure stipulated. We are unable to think that what the two resolutions provide for is larger in ambit than what sec. 6 of the Abolition Act provides for or what the terms of the Pasayata tenure stipulated. To take any such view is to hold that the transfer contemplated by the said resolutions not only means the transfer of title but also transfer of possession. We therefore read both the resolutions as applying to cases where there is transfer of title. That is the only view in which we can read the two resolutions. [rest of the judgment is not material for the reports]appeal dismissed. .