D. G. KARIA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the decision dt. May 5 1983 rendered in Revision Application No. TEN. B. S. 215 of 1982 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By the impugned decision the learned member of the Tribunal rejected the revision application of the petitioners herein and confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector Valsad dated July 5 1982 in Ceiling Case No. 12 or 1982. ( 2 ) THE petitioner no. 1 by his application under Sec. 8 (2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 [for short the Lands Ceiling Act] sought declaration that the agricultural lands transferred by him in favour of his grandson Chitranjan by way of registered document of gift dated May 5 1972 was not with a view to defeat the object of the Lands Ceiling Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioner no. 1 transferred the agricultural lands at village Palgam Survey No. 36 admeasuring 3 Acres-35 Gunthas S. No. 36/1 admeasuring 4 Acres-35 Gunthas S. No. 37 admeasuring 3 Acres-08 Gunthas S. No. 38 admeasuring O Acre-32 Gunthas S. No. 41 admeasuring O-Acre 35 Gs. S. No. 42 admeasuring O-Acre 43/4 Gs. S. No. 42 admeasuring O-Acre-13 Gs. S. No. 42 admeasuring O Acre-13 Gs. S. No. 41 admeasuring 1 Acre-O G. S. No. 42 admeasuring O Acre 13 Gs. and at village Solsamba S. No. 237 admeasuring O-Acre-07 Gs. in all 15 Acres - 223/4 Gs. in favour of his grandson by the aforesaid gift deed. The matter was remanded twice by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal for afresh inquiry for the reasons mentioned in the judgments of the Tribunal. Accordingly the Deputy Collector Valsad after fresh inquiry by his judgment and order dt. July 25 1982 rejected the application of the petitioners under Sec. 8 (2) of the Lands Ceiling Act. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Learned Deputy Collector Valsad preferred aforesaid revision application under Sec. 38 of the Lands Ceiling Act before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal also rejected the revision application confirming the order of the Deputy Collector as aforesaid. ( 3 ) MR. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Learned Deputy Collector Valsad preferred aforesaid revision application under Sec. 38 of the Lands Ceiling Act before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal also rejected the revision application confirming the order of the Deputy Collector as aforesaid. ( 3 ) MR. S. H. Sanjanwala learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the decision of the learned Deputy Collector and that of the Tribunal confirming it are vitiated as there is an error apparent on the face of the record in construing provisions of Sec. 8 of the Lands Ceiling Act. Mr. Sanjanwala submitted that by virtue of provision of Sec. 7 there was no restriction for the petitioners to transfer any land as the provision of Sec. 7 did not apply to the petitioners who held lands not exceeding ceiling area. It is no in dispute that the petitioners held lands to the extent of 15 Acres-22 Gs. as mentioned in his application under Sec. 8 (2) of the Lands Ceiling Act. The ceiling area prescribed for holding the lands is 39 Acres. It is therefore evident that the petitioner no. 1 possessed lands less than the ceiling area being 39 Acres. The learned Deputy Collector relied upon the Will executed by the petitioner no. 1 on June 24 1967 contending inter alia that he would transfer lands in question to his grandson Chitranjan on his attaining age of majority and in case he (petitioner No. 1) is no more at that time the Will would operate Therefore the Will was not the basis of the transfer of the lands in question When the Will was admittedly executed in the year 1967 there was no question of defeating object of the Lands Ceiling Act. It was not necessary to refer the Will and the registered gift deed dt. 5 as observed by the learned Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector held that the Will appeared to have been concocted lateron with a view to get rid of the provisions of the Lands Ceiling Act. It was not necessary to refer the Will and the registered gift deed dt. 5 as observed by the learned Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector held that the Will appeared to have been concocted lateron with a view to get rid of the provisions of the Lands Ceiling Act. THIS finding apparently appears to be erroneous for the reasons that in the year 1967 when the Will was executed there was no question of defeating the object of provisions of the Act as contemplated in Sec. 8 of the Act Similarly the Tribunal has also attached importance to the Will stating that the Will was not validly executed as it was attested by only one witness In my view the learned Deputy Collector and the Tribunal did not notice that the lands in question were not transferred by way of Will nor the Will was the basis of such transfer. The Will was sought to have been relied upon by the petitioners for a limited purpose to show that he intended the transfer of the land as back as in the year 1967 and therefore there was no question of defeating object of the Act in the year 1967 Therefore the importance attached to the execution of the Will or its invalidity is not relevant. The Tribunal has also questioned as to why the gift deed was executed in the year 1972 and not soon after execution of the Will Period of five years taken to execute gift-deed after making the Will according to the Tribunal created doubt about intention of the petitioner Petitioner no 1 is therefore assumed to have intended to defeat the object of the provisions of the law by transferring the lands in question in favour of his grand-son. It appears that the Tribunal did not examine the facts and law relating thereto in its proper perspective inasmuch as the petitioner no. 1 referred to his Will with a view to emphasise the fact of his desire and intention to transfer the land in favour of his grand-son for the purpose of prosecuting his further study and his well-being That was so in the year 1967 In 1972 his grand-son attained majority and accordingly the gift deed was executed. 1 referred to his Will with a view to emphasise the fact of his desire and intention to transfer the land in favour of his grand-son for the purpose of prosecuting his further study and his well-being That was so in the year 1967 In 1972 his grand-son attained majority and accordingly the gift deed was executed. Therefore the reasonings adopted by the Tribunal do not appear to be sound and plausible ( 4 ) THE Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 has been enacted to make provisions in respect of restrictions upon holding agricultural land in excess of certain limits and for securing the distribution of agricultural lands as best to subserve the common good to provide for the acquisition of surplus agricultural lands for the allotment thereof to persons who are in need of lands for agriculture including co-operative societies landless persons agricultural labourers and small holders This is the main object of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 It is therefore difficult to appreciate that a person holding land not exceeding the ceiling area could defeat the object of the Act by transferring his small parcels of land to his grand-son for his education and well-being. The transfer of the land during the period between 24-1-1971 and 1-4-1976 by itself cannot be construed as defeating the object of the Act. The learned Deputy Collector and the Tribunal have not examined case of the petitioners from this angle. In the facts of the case the learned Member of the Tribunal has misconstrued and misinterpreted the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Lands Ceiling Act ( 5 ) IN the above view of the matter the petition succeeds and is allowed. In the result the impugned decision dt. May 5 1983 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal confirming the of the Deputy Collector dt. July 25 1982 in Ceiling Case No. 12 of 1982 are quashed and set aside. Application of the petitioner no. 1 under sec. 8 (2) of the Lands Ceiling Act stands granted Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. .