THAKKER, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Annexure c to the petition on 6/08/1979. In this petition, the petitioner has also challenged the constitutionality of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The matter was placed for admission and the Division Bench has admitted the same by issuing rule thereon on 30/11/1979. Notice as to interim relief was issued and after hearing the parties interim relief in terms of para 13 (iii) was also granted. Today the matter was called out for final hearing. ( 2 ) MR. A. J. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for Mr. C. H. Vora has specifically given up the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to consider the said question. ( 3 ) BEFORE going to the merits of the matter, it is necessary to state few facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding the controversy raised in the present petition. The petitioner made an application Annexure a to the petition, stating therein that he was holding certain lands in Kutchh District in various villages and in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Act, he sought permission of the competent authority, i. e. , Deputy Collector, Bhuj for permitting him to transfer certain lands. In the said application, it was stated by him that he was about 70 years of age and was entitled 4 units in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He would, therefore, be entitled to retain 260 acres of lands, the remaining land would be required to be treated surplus. By that application he has prayed that out of the land retainable by him he was willing to transfer 77 Acres and 14 Gs. of land and if the same will be granted the object of the Act would not be defeated. He, therefore, prayed that necessary permission under Sec. 7 of the Act should be granted in his favour. ( 4 ) THE Deputy Collector vide his order dt. 19/01/1979 granted the necessary permission on terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. of land and if the same will be granted the object of the Act would not be defeated. He, therefore, prayed that necessary permission under Sec. 7 of the Act should be granted in his favour. ( 4 ) THE Deputy Collector vide his order dt. 19/01/1979 granted the necessary permission on terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. In the order, the Deputy Collector observed that the applicant and his three major sons would be entitled to 260 Acres of land being 4 units and since he wanted to transfer the land which is otherwise returnable by him and since the land was selected by him the object of the Act would not be defeated. Therefore, the said application was granted. It appears that the State of Gujarat first respondent, preferred a revision application before the Gujarat revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the Tribunal by the impugned order dt. 6/08/1979 quashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector and held that the said order was null and void and was required to be ignored. It is against this order that the present petition is filed by the petitioner. ( 5 ) MR. Patel submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in recording a finding that the transfer in question can be said to be null and void and without jurisdiction. According to him, this finding is contrary to the provisions of the Act and requires to be interfered with by this Court. ( 6 ) MR. Patel has also submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record in completely ignoring most material fact that the order under Sec. 7 of the Act can be passed only prior to the final determination of the proceedings under Secs. 20 and 21 of the Act. But all those actions and orders are always subject to the termination of the proceedings which would be passed at the end of the proceeding. ( 7 ) WE are of the view that the contentions raised by Mr. Patel are well founded and require to be accepted. ( 8 ) LOOKING to the scheme of the Act, it is very clear to us that as per sub-sec. ( 7 ) WE are of the view that the contentions raised by Mr. Patel are well founded and require to be accepted. ( 8 ) LOOKING to the scheme of the Act, it is very clear to us that as per sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 6 no person shall subject to the provisions of the act be entitled to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area with effect from the appointed day. It is, therefore, clear that so far as the ceiling is concerned the extent is required to be calculated with effect from that date which in the instant case has already gone. It is on the basis of that date that the area is required to be calculated. Sections 20 and 21 provide for declaration of surplus land and procedure relating to the said land after termination of the proceedings. Section 7, however, takes care of certain contingencies and circumstance which are envisaged by the legislature after appointed day and before termination of the proceedings under Secs. 20 and 21 of the act. Section 7 is material for the purpose of present controversy and it reads as under :"7 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no land shall, after the appointed day, be - (a) transferred whether by way of sale (including sale in execution of a decree of a Civil Court or of an award or order of any other competent authority) or by way of gift, exchange, lease or otherwise, or (b) sub-divided (including sub-division by a decree or order of a Civil court or any other competent authority) whether by partition, family arrangement of otherwise; except with the permission in writing of the Collector. (2) The Collector may refuse to give such permission if in his opinion the transfer or sub-division of land is likely to defeat the object of this Act. (3) In computing under the provisions of this Act, the area of surplus land, if any held by a person, the transfer or sub-division of land made by or on behalf of such person in contravention of sub-sec. (1) shall be ignored. (4) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to a person who hold land not exceeding the ceiling area. " ( 9 ) SECTION 15 provides for computation of surplus land. (1) shall be ignored. (4) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to a person who hold land not exceeding the ceiling area. " ( 9 ) SECTION 15 provides for computation of surplus land. It provides that the extent of the surplus land, if any, held by any person shall be computed on the basis of the total land held by such person. The proviso to the said section clarifies that the total land so held shall include inter alia, the land, if any, transferred or sub-divided by or on behalf of such person in contravention of Sec. 7. ( 10 ) THUS, from the conjoint reading of Secs. 7 and 15, particularly proviso which we have referred to above, in our opinion, it becomes clear that the transfers and sub-divisions which have been contemplated by sec. 7 are subject to the final termination of the proceedings under Secs. 20 and 21 of the Act. We are also of the opinion that if necessary permission is not taken or granted by the competent authority and transfer or sub-division of the land is effected or made by or on behalf of a person holding the land it is required to be ignored, under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 7 read with proviso to Sec. 15 of the Act. Therefore, Mr. Patel is right in submitting that on an application under Sec. 7 the order is required to be passed prior to final termination of the proceedings. In our view, it is consistent with the scheme of the Act inasmuch as if the proceedings are finally terminated at the end of the inquiry as contemplated by Sees. 20 and 21 of the Act there is no necessity or need for any person to ask for any such Pernission because after the proceedings are over, if he is holding the land in excess of the ceiling, he cannot deal with the said property in any manner whatsoever. It is only during the pendency of the proceedings and before the final determination as contemplated by Sees. 20 and 21 of the Act that in certain situation as contemplated by the legislature under Sec. 7 of the Act that the application can be made for the purpose of transfer, sub-division etc. It is only during the pendency of the proceedings and before the final determination as contemplated by Sees. 20 and 21 of the Act that in certain situation as contemplated by the legislature under Sec. 7 of the Act that the application can be made for the purpose of transfer, sub-division etc. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal has unfortunately misunderstood the scope of Sec. 7 of the Act on one hand and Sees. 20 and 21 of the Act on the other hand. ( 11 ) WE may, however, hasten to add that the Tribunal is right to the extent that whatever action is taken during the pendency of the proceedings and before termination of the proceedings under Sees. 20 and 21 of the act would be subject to the final result of the proceedings. But then the contention of the petitioner is well founded that an application contemplated by Sec. 7 of the Act can be made only prior to the final termination of the proceedings. ( 12 ) MR. Patel is also right in submitting that the transfer or subdivision made under Sec. 7 of the Act even without permission of the competent authority are taken care of by sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 7 of the Act. It is specifically provided in sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 7 that in computing under the provisions of the Act any transfer or sub-division of land made by or on behalf of, such person in contravention of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 7 shall be ignored. The resultant effect would be that at the time of termination of the proceeding the final order would be passed under Sees. 20 and 21 of the Act taking into account provisions of Sees. 7 and 15 of the Act. ( 13 ) IN the result, we allow this petition, quash and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, Annexure c to the petition dated 6/08/1979 and restore the order passed by the Deputy Collector, at Annexure b dated 19/01/1979. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no orders as to costs. .