S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) THESE two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise a short but an interesting question regarding right of a tenant-deemed purchaser under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act) to be offered for purchase under sec. 32p (2) (c) that very portion of land held by him as a tenant on the tillers day the deemed purchase of which had become inoperative under the provisions of sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act. ( 2 ) IN order to highlight the question involved in the petitions a few relevant facts may be noted at the outset. The petitioners in both these petitions were lawful tenants of certain agricultural lands situated in village Dungri-Mithapur in Dhari taluka of Amreli district. Under the provisions of sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act they became deemed purchasers of these lands. In proceedings under see. 32-G of the Tenancy Act for fixation of purchase price in favour of the petitioners it was found that both the petitioners were holding lands in excess of the ceiling area as prescribed by sec. 2 (2d) read with sec. 5 of the Tenancy Act. The ceiling area limit for agricultural land was 48 acres of jirayat land. In case of both the petitioners it was found that their holdings would exceed 48 acres if they were permitted to purchase all the lands held by them as tenants under the Tenancy Act. It was held by the Mamlatdar and ALT that the petitioner in special civil application No. 1773 of 1977 was holding excess land admeasuring 3 acres 27 gunthas while the petitioner in Special Civil Application NJ 316 of 1978 was holding excess land admeasuring 20 acres-38 gunthas. these excess lands could not be sold to the petitioners as deemed purchasers on account of the combined operation of sec. 32 and sec. 32e of the Tenancy Act. Consequently these excess lands which could not be purchased by the petitioners as deemed purchasers had to be disposed of by the Collector in the manner specified in clause (c) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 32p. The petitioners contended that the extent of ceiling area had undergone a change in view of the latter notification issued by the State of Gujarat under sec. 7 of the Tenancy Act by which the ceiling was raised. (2) of sec. 32p. The petitioners contended that the extent of ceiling area had undergone a change in view of the latter notification issued by the State of Gujarat under sec. 7 of the Tenancy Act by which the ceiling was raised. That contention was repelled by the Deputy Collector on the ground that the subsequent notification issued under sec. 7 had no effect on the situation that prevailed on 1-4-1957 on which day the petitioners were held to have become deemed purchasers and consequently the excess land computed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in case of each of the petitioners was required to be disposed of under sec. 32p (2) (c) as enjoined by sec. 32e of the Tenancy Act. This decision of the competent authority has become final as it was ultimately confirmed by this court. It is in these circumstances that the Mamlatdar Dhari acting as Collector initiated proceedings under sec. 32p (2) (c) of the Tenancy Act for terminating tenancies of the petitioners and for summarily evicting them and for disposal of their excess lands as per the said provisions Notification to that effect was issued by the Mamlatdar Dhari under sec. 32p (2) (c) on 1-4-1977. That Notification is at annexure F to Special Civil Application No. 1773 of 1977 and annexure D to Special Civil Application No. 316 of 1978. The petitioners contend that as per the provisions of sec. 32p (2) (c) (a-i) they are entitled to be given priority for the purpose of purchasing these very lands which are sought to be disposed of under sec. 32p (2) (c) and as no offer was made to them in the first instance even though they stood first in the priority list as per the aforesaid provision the Notification dated 1-4-1977 as issued by the Mamlatdar exercising powers of the Collector is null and void and consequently the petitioners cannot be summarily evicted from the lands till the question of their right in priority to purchase these lands is decided by the authority under sec. 32p (2) (c ). The petitioners aforesaid contention was not accepted by the respondents acting as competent authorities under the Act and that is how the petitioners have landed in this court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32p (2) (c ). The petitioners aforesaid contention was not accepted by the respondents acting as competent authorities under the Act and that is how the petitioners have landed in this court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 3 ) IN order to resolve this question it is necessary to have a look at a few relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act. Sec. 2 (2d) defines ceiling area to mean in relation to land held by a person whether as an owner or tenant of partly as owner and partly as tenant the area of land fixed as ceiling area under sec. 5 or 7. Sec. 5 of the Tenancy Act provides:" (I) For the purposes of this Act the ceiling area of lands shall be- (a) 48 acres of jirayat land or (b) 24 acres of seasonally Irritated land or paddy or rice land or (c) 12 acres perennially irrigated land. ( 4 ) IN the present case it is an admitted position that both the petitioners held agriculture lands as tenants on the tillers day which were in excess of 48 acres of jirayat land which was the permissible ceiling area of land which could be held by the petitioners under the Act. It is not necessary to refer to sec. 7 as the subsequent notification enlarging the ceiling limit under sec. 7 hits been held by this court in earlier proceedings to be of no avail to the petitioners. The next relevant section is sec. 33 which lays down that" (1) On the first day of April 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the tillers day) every tenant shall subject to the other provisions of the section and the provisions of the next succeeding Sections be deemed to have purchased from his landlord d free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day the land held by him as tenant". " (1) in the case of a tenant who does not hold any land as owner but holds land as tenant in excess of the ceiling area upto the ceiling area; (2) In the case of a tenant who holds land as owner below the ceiling area such part of the land only as will raise his holding to the extent of the ceiling area". ( 5 ) SEC. ( 5 ) SEC. 32-B is another succeeding section which is also required to be noted in extenso. It reads as under :"32 B. 11 a tenant holds land partly as owner and partly as tenant but the area the land held as owner is equal to or exceeds the ceiling area he shall not be deemed to have purchased the land held by him as a tenant under sec 32". ( 6 ) THEN follows sec. 32e which reads as under :"32 E. The balance of any land after the purchase by the tenant under sec. 32 shall be disposed of by sale by the Collector in the manner specified in clause (c) of sub-sec (2) of sec. 32p and thereupon the provisions of sub-sec. (5) of sec. 32p shall apply to such sale". ( 7 ) ON a combined reading of secs. 32 32 32 and 32e it appears clear that if a tenant on the tillers day holds land in excess of the permissible ceiling area the excess land held by him cannot be made the subject matter of statutory purchase by him and this excess land will have to be disposed of by sale by the Collector in the manner provided by sec 32 In the present case admittedly both the petitioners did hold land more than 48 acres which was the permissible ceiling area and the concerned excess lands therefore fell at the disposal of the Collector. There is no dispute on this point. Admittedly the stage of disposal of excess lands under sec. 32p (2) (c) was squarely reached in the case of both the petitioners. Relevant provisions of sec. 32p are now required to be noted. "32 P. (1) Where the purchase of any land by tenant under sec. 32 becomes ineffective under the foregoing provisions of this sub-chapter or where the tenant fails to exercise the right to purchase land under sec. 43-ID within the period specified in that section the Collector may suo motu or on an application made in this behalf and after holding a formal inquiry direct that the land shall be disposed of in the manner provided in sub-sec. (2 ). (2) Such direction shall subject to the provisions of sub-sec. 43-ID within the period specified in that section the Collector may suo motu or on an application made in this behalf and after holding a formal inquiry direct that the land shall be disposed of in the manner provided in sub-sec. (2 ). (2) Such direction shall subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2aa) and (2a) provide (a) that the tenancy in respect of the land shall be terminated and the tenant be summarily evicted; (b) x x x (c) that the entire land or such portion thereof as the case may be notwithstanding that it is a fragment shall subject to the terms and conditions as may be specified in the direction be disposed of by sale to person in the following order of priority (hereinafter called the priority list): (a-i) the tenant whose tenancy in respect of that land is terminated if such tenant is willing to accept the order of sale provided the occasion for the issue of such direction has not arisen by reason of an act of collusion between such tenant and the landlord; (i a co-operative farming society the members of which are agricultural labourers landless persons or small holders or a combination of such persons; (iii) agricultural labourers; (iv) landless persons; (iv) small holders; (v) a co-operative farming society of agriculturists (other than small holders) who hold either as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant landless in area than an economic holding and who are artisans; (vi) an agriculturist (other than small holder) who holds either as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant landless in area than an economic holding and who is an artisan; (vii) any other co-operative farming society; (vii) any agriculturist who holds either as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant land larger in area than an economic holding but less in area than the ceiling area; (ix) any person not being an agriculturist who intends to take to the profession of agriculture ( 8 ) SEC. 32p (2aa) reads as under :"where in any case the direction under sub-sec. (2) provides that the land in respect of which the tenancy is terminated shall be disposed of by sale to the tenant referred to in sub-clause (a-i) of clause (c) of sub-sec. 32p (2aa) reads as under :"where in any case the direction under sub-sec. (2) provides that the land in respect of which the tenancy is terminated shall be disposed of by sale to the tenant referred to in sub-clause (a-i) of clause (c) of sub-sec. (2) the tenant shall be liable to be evicted only if the land or as the case my be the portion thereof could not be disposed of by sale to him". ( 9 ) SEC. 32p (5) reads as under :-"where any land is sold under sub-sec. (2) the Collector shall determine the price of the land in accordance with the provisions of sec. 63-A and the price so determined shall be payable by annual instalments not exceeding six with simple interest at the rate of 41/2% per annum as the Collector may determine and the price of the land recovered from the purchaser shall subject to the provisions of sec. 32 be paid to the owner thereof. (5) On the payment of the last instalments of the price together with the interest due the Collector shall issue a certificate of purchase in the prescribed form to the purchaser in respect of the land. Such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of purchase". ( 10 ) IT is obvious that excess land held by the petitioners which could not be sold to them under the provisions or sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act had to be disposed of by the Collector by firstly terminating tenancies of the petitioners qua these lands and by summarily evicting them and also deciding to sell off this excess land in the order of priority as laid down by sec. 32p (2) (c) itself. As enjoined by the aforesaid provisions of sec. 32p it becomes clear that even though the concerned tenant who has not been able to purchase the given land on the tillers day as it was in excess of the ceiling area he has again to be given a locus poenitentiae by the scheme of statutory pre-emption to get a fresh chance to purchase the land of course through the intervention of the State authorities provided he is prepared to accept the same. Sec. 32p (2) (c) itself lays down the order of priority. Clause (a-i) occurs first in the list of priority. Sec. 32p (2) (c) itself lays down the order of priority. Clause (a-i) occurs first in the list of priority. Consequently the concerned tenant whose tenancy has been terminated is again given a special right to purchase the very same and in priority to others and so long as his right to purchase in priority is not considered fully and proceedings pertaining to the same are not completed as enjoined by sec. 32p (2aa) such tenant cannot even be summarily evicted from the concerned land. A combined operation of various provisions of sec. 32p (2) clearly indicates that even if tenancy of a tenant is to be terminated and he is to be summarily evicted before actual summary eviction takes place. sec. 32p (2) (2aa) read with sec. 32p (2) (c) (a-i) interjects itself and impeds the process of summary eviction of such tenant. In short the legislature has given a locus poenitentiae to such tenant to get back the land which be could not purchase as a statutory deemed purchaser under the scheme of sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act. It may prima facie look incongruous that a tenant who cannot purchase the given land as it is in excess of his ceiling holding can all the same be permitted to purchase the same through the machinery of sec. 32p (2) (c) in priority as it would again swell his ceiling limit and the purchased land would again go out of his hands. Thus such an exercise would be an exercise in futility and would result in an absurd situation of moving in a circle. At first blush such an eventuality can be apprehended. But a closer scrutiny of the scheme of the Tenancy Act does not reveal such an absurdity. It may be noted that if a tenant holds any land in excess of the ceiling area as enjoined by the Tenancy Act the excess land will not be sold to him under sec. 32 and will be disposed of under sec. 3p (2) (c ). If such excess land is again sold to him under the scheme of priority as per sec. 32p (2) (c) (ai) he does not purchase this land as a deemed purchaser under sec. 32 and will be disposed of under sec. 3p (2) (c ). If such excess land is again sold to him under the scheme of priority as per sec. 32p (2) (c) (ai) he does not purchase this land as a deemed purchaser under sec. 32 but he purchasers it through intervention of the Collector exercising statutory power under see 32p (2) (c) and once he purchases this land he purchases the same not as a deemed purchaser but as a priority holder who has been given a statutory pre-emption right under sec. 32 Purchase in his favour is completed as per provisions of sec. 32p (5) and on payment of instalment of purchase price fixed the Collector issues him the certificate to purchase under sec. 32p (6 ). This scheme is entirely different from the scheme of sec. 32 read with sec. 32g and sec. 32m of the Tenancy Act. A deemed purchaser gets the purchase price fixed under sec. 32g and on payment of all instalments of purchase price he is issued a certificate under sec. 32 But so far as the tenant who is outside the scheme of sec. 32 proceedings qua a given piece of excess land is concerned he gets a locus poenitentiae to purchase this very same land not under sec. 32 but under the provisions of sec. 32p (2) (c) itself. That is entirely a different statutory right available to such tenant. The legislature in its wisdom has thought it fit to confer on such tenant this additional right. It cannot be nullified on the ground that such a tenant could not purchase this very land under sec. 39 read with sec. 32g of the Tenancy Act. That may be so. Still if the very statute by any other provisions gives an additional right to such a tenant he is entitled to the exercise thereof. Still the question remains as to whether the aforesaid exercise is prone to result in moving in a circle and whether the concerned land can effectively remain with the tenant when it would once again make the holding of the tenant to exceed the ceiling limit. In order to resolve this controversy it is necessary to look at old sec. 34 of the Tenancy Act which stood deleted by Gujarat Act No. 27 of 1961. Under said sec. In order to resolve this controversy it is necessary to look at old sec. 34 of the Tenancy Act which stood deleted by Gujarat Act No. 27 of 1961. Under said sec. 34 it was provided that:" (1) Subject to the provisions of sec. 35 it shall not be lawful with effect from the appointed day for any person to hold whether as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant land in excess of the ceiling area". ( 11 ) IF this section had remained on the statute book then obviously exercise under sec. 321) (2) (c) by offering the excess land to the same tenant which he could not hold as a deemed purchaser would have failed as sec. 34 of the same Act would have nullified the effect of sec. 32p (2) (c) (ai) and both the provisions would have been in head-on conflict and would have remained irreconcilable. But this sec. 34 has been deleted by the legislature. That has been done on account of the fact that Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act 1960 was brought on the statute book. It is this Act which holds the field now. As per sec. 4 of the Ceiling Act? the lands in local areas have been classified as per schedules annexed to the said Act. As per sec. 6 of the Ceiling Act it has been provided as under :" (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any agreement usage or decree or order of a court with effect from the appointed day no person shall subject to the provisions of sub-secs. (2) (3) (3a) and (3b) be entitled to hold whether as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant land in excess of the ceiling area". ( 12 ) IT is therefore obvious that if the concerned tenant who holds lands more than the ceiling area as defined by the Tenancy Act is offered excess land on priority basis under sec. 32p (2) (c) and if he exercises the option and purchases the same his holding of land would get swelled because of this additional purchase. But that additional holding would be subject not to the provisions of the Ceiling limit as enjoined by the Tenancy Act which after the deletion of sec. 32p (2) (c) and if he exercises the option and purchases the same his holding of land would get swelled because of this additional purchase. But that additional holding would be subject not to the provisions of the Ceiling limit as enjoined by the Tenancy Act which after the deletion of sec. 34 does not impose any such restriction but would be subject to the ceiling limit as laid down by the Ceiling Act. It may be noted that for the lands in question which are situated in Dhari taluka of Amreli district ceiling as per the Tenancy Act is 48 acres of jirayat land as seen above. But so far as the Ceiling Ace is concerned the lands situated in Dhari taluka of Amreli district are classified as local area falling under Class F as seen from part VI of Schedule II and as per Schedule I to the Ceiling Act ceiling limit for dry crop lands of class F is shown to be 96 acres of such land It is at once clear that scheme for compitation of excess land under the Ceiling Act is entirely different procedure for telling possession of such excess land is also different and the said scheme in no way impinges upon any of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. It is pertinent to note that the scheme of Statutory priority given to the tenant under sec. 32p (2) (c) (ai) was enacted by Gujarat Act 5 of 1973 by sec. 12 thereof. It had nothing to do with old sec. 34 of the Tenancy Act which was out of the harms way since 1961. Consequently giving effect to the statutory provision of sec. 32p (2) (c) (ai) does not in any way conflict with any of the other provisions of the Tenancy Act. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that by providing a locus poenitentiae to the tenants to purchase land under sec. 32p (2) (c) (ai) which could not be purchased by them as deemed purchasers under sec. 32g any absurd or unworkable situation is likely to arise or that operation of sec. 32p (2) (c) would in any way conflict with the earlier provisions of sec. 32 read with secs. 32a and 32b of the Tenancy Act. Both these sets of provisions can operate in their own fields and can yield different results as discussed above. 32g any absurd or unworkable situation is likely to arise or that operation of sec. 32p (2) (c) would in any way conflict with the earlier provisions of sec. 32 read with secs. 32a and 32b of the Tenancy Act. Both these sets of provisions can operate in their own fields and can yield different results as discussed above. There is no conflict or collision between these provisions as indicated above. Consequences which follow the operation of sec. 32 read with secs. 32a 32 and 32e would stop at the stage when the concerned excess lands are put at the disposal of the Collector. Thereafter it is the independent scheme of sec. 32p (2) (c) which starts operating of its own and under that scheme the tenant whose tenancy is terminated is again given a locus poenitentiae to walk in if he wants to purchase the said lands subject of course to the statutory requirements of sec. 32p (2) (c) (ai ). But if these requirements are fulfilled there is no reason why such a tenant should be excluded from the scheme of priority or can ever be bypassed when the legislature mandates otherwise. Excluding such tenant from the priority list will be going contrary to the express provisions of sec. 32p (2) (c) (ai ). The Mamlatdar acting as Collector has issued the impugned notification dated 1-4-1977 totally bypassing the statutory right available to the petitioners under sec. 32p (2) (c) (ai) and hence this impugned notification is ultra vires the said provision and cannot be sustained. The reasoning adopted by the respondents for bypassing the petitioners claims for being offered the lands for purchase is to the effect that these tenants cannot become deemed purchasers of lands on 1-4-1957 because of operation of sec. 32 read with secs. 37a and 32e. They have ceased to be the tenants of these lands and therefore they cannot again walk in under the scheme of priority. The said stand flies in the face of the legislative mandate as enshrined in sec. 32p (2) (c) (ai ). When such an express legislative mandate is provided the claim of the concerned tenants cannot be bypassed and so long as that scheme is not fully implemented no summary eviction of such tenants can be ordered from the concerned lands as enjoined by sec. 32p (2aa ). 32p (2) (c) (ai ). When such an express legislative mandate is provided the claim of the concerned tenants cannot be bypassed and so long as that scheme is not fully implemented no summary eviction of such tenants can be ordered from the concerned lands as enjoined by sec. 32p (2aa ). Consequently the impugned Notification dated 1-4-1977 and the orders passed by the Mamlatdar acting as Collector directing summary eviction of the petitioners are found to be ex-facie ultra vires and illegal and cannot be sustained. Rule made absolute. .