N. N. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) IN the present Special Civil Application a short question which arises for determination is as to whether on denotification of any enclosures, building or locality to the sub-market yard the same continue to vest in the Market Committee and as such can it be sold by the said Market Committee ? for quashing the order passed by the Director, Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance and confirmed by the State Government. ( 2 ) FEW necessary facts are that the petitioner Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Patan (hereinafter referred to as the Market Committee, was originally constituted under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 in respect of various agricultural produces and in 1952 after following requisite procedure, cattle was included in regulated agricultural produce. On cattle being included in the regulated agricultural produce under the Market Committee, the Committee took on lease land admeasuring 1 Acre 7 Gs. from Shri Ranchhodji Mandir Trust. The state Government declared the said lands as buildings of Survey No. 56 as submarket yard under S. 4a of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 by the notification dated 5-12-1955. On the promulgation of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1963) in view of S. 64 of the Act, market area, market, principal market yard, sub-market yard and market proper declared under the repealed Act deemed to have been declared as such under the Act of 1963. The Market Committee is also deemed to have been constituted under the Act of 1963. It is stated that the lands in question when came to be declared as sub-market in 1955, did not belong to the Market Committee but the Market Committee got the same on lease and subsequently purchased it in the year 1959. ( 3 ) THE Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gujarat State, by the notification dated 4-12-1987 deleted the word cattle from the list of the agricultural produce regulated in the Patan Taluka Market area. The Director by a notification dated 16-1-1993 in exercise of power under S. 7 (2) of the Act denotified the Sub-Market Yard, Patan. ( 3 ) THE Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gujarat State, by the notification dated 4-12-1987 deleted the word cattle from the list of the agricultural produce regulated in the Patan Taluka Market area. The Director by a notification dated 16-1-1993 in exercise of power under S. 7 (2) of the Act denotified the Sub-Market Yard, Patan. The said notification is placed on record at Annexure b. By communication dated 21-1-1993 the Director informed the petitioner-Committee that if they take decision to sell the land of cattle sub-yard they may do so, but it may be done only by public auction. ( 4 ) IT appears that the respondent No. 3 Shri Yusufbhai N. Nandoliya who claims to be Convener of "kishan Hit Rakshak Samiti" approached the State Government by way of filing a Revision Application challenging the order of the Director dated 21-1-1993. Eventually, it was heard and decided by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Agriculture, Co-operation and Rural Development Department by the order dated 12-5-1993. The Deputy Secretary after considering the provisions of Secs. 52 and 53 (1) and (2) of the Act held that the land vests in the State Government and therefore, the Committee has no right to sell the land. In view of it, the State Government allowed the Revision Application and while setting aside the order of the Director directed that if the land in question is to be disposed of then it shall not be disposed of without permission of the Collector, District Mahesana and in case of disposal, valuation of the land shall be made by the expert and sale price shall be determined afresh and disposal shall be made by public auction by inviting tenders on the basis of the new offset price and further respondents-Government Officer shall be involved in the proceedings for disposal of the land. This Special civil Application is brought against the said order of the Deputy Secretary dated 12-5-1993. ( 5 ) IT is contended by Mr. K. S. Zaveri, learned Advocate for the petitioners that the Deputy Secretary has misread the provisions of Secs. 52 and 53 of the Act of 1963 which has led to erroneous finding that on account of denotification the subject land of the sub-yard vests in the State Government and as such the market committee has no power to sale the land. 52 and 53 of the Act of 1963 which has led to erroneous finding that on account of denotification the subject land of the sub-yard vests in the State Government and as such the market committee has no power to sale the land. He submits that S. 53 deals with the effect of denotification or exclusion of market area and not market yard. The market area is declared under S. 6 of the Act whereas the market yard is declared under the provisions of S. 7 of the Act. He further submits that in view of S. 10 of the Act every Market Committee is a body corporate and it has perpetual succession and is competent to acquire, hold, lease, sell or otherwise transfer property. On the other hand, Mr. Udvani, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3 submits that the members of the Market Committee mala fidely intends to sell the valuable land at throw away price which is evident from the fact that while the valuation of the land is more than 1. 5 crores, the offset price is fixed only at Rs. 10 lacs. He also submits that on declaration of market area under S. 6 and market yard under Sec. 7 of the Act of 1963 the Market Committee is to act for the benefit of the farmers and thus on denotification the Market Committee cannot enrich its coffer by selling the land. The said land can only be utilised for the benefit of the farmers. He further submits that the said land can be utilised by extending other purpose under the Act of 1963. Mr. Udvani supports the order passed by the Deputy Secretary. The State government has filed the reply stating that in the notification inadvertently wrong section has been quoted as S. 7 (2) instead of S. 52 of the Act of 1963. Miss P. S. Parmar, learned A. G. P. contends that the petitioner cannot dispose of the land which prior to denotification was part of the market yard. She also supports the order of the Deputy Secretary. ( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be convenient to read provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 to the extent it is relevant in the present case. She also supports the order of the Deputy Secretary. ( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be convenient to read provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 to the extent it is relevant in the present case. The Act is described as one to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce in the State of Gujarat. Chapter II provides for declaration of the market yard, constitution of market and establishment of Market Committee. S. 5 of the Act of 1963 authorises the Director to declare his intention to regulate, purchase and sell all the agricultural produce and in his specified area or after inviting objections or suggestions from the local authority in the area and from other persons. S. 6 of the Act of 1963 authorises the Director after considering objections/suggestions received within the period specified in the notification to declare the area as a part thereof as market area for the purpose of this Act in respect of all or any of the kinds of agricultural produce specified in the Notification. Sub-S. (1) of S. 7 of the Act of 1963 provides that for each market, there shall be a market which shall consist of (i) one principal market, (ii) sub-market yards, if any and (iii) all markets proper. S. 7 of the Act of 1963 empowers the Director to declare by a notification in Official Gazette, any enclosure, building or locality in any market area to be principal yard and any other enclosure, building or locality to be a submarket yard. S. 10 of the Act of 1963 declares that every Market Committee shall be competent to acquire, hold, lease, sell or otherwise transfer property, to raise loans upon the security of its property in the manner and subject to the limits and other requirements including guarantees prescribed by the rules, and to contract and do all other things necessary for the purpose for which it is established. A Market Committee shall be deemed to be a local authority under clause (26) of S. 3 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 as provided under clause (2) of S. 10 of the Act. S. 11 of the Act of 1963 deals with the constitution of Market Committee. A Market Committee shall be deemed to be a local authority under clause (26) of S. 3 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 as provided under clause (2) of S. 10 of the Act. S. 11 of the Act of 1963 deals with the constitution of Market Committee. Chapter VIII deals with control. S. 44 empowers the Director on his own motion by himself or by an officer authorised by him to inspect or cause to be inspected the accounts of a Market Committee or hold an inquiry into the affairs of a Market Committee. S. 45 empowers the Director to provide for performance of duties in default of Market Committee. S. 46 empowers the State Government to supersede the Market Committee and if the Market Committee is not competent to perform or persistently makes default in performing the duties imposed on it under this Act or abuses its power. S. 47 of the Act of 1963 empowers the Director to call for proceedings of a Market Committee or an extract therefrom, any book or document in the possession or under control of a Market Committee and any return, statement, account or report which the Director thinks fit to require such Market Committee to furnish. Further, under sub-clause (b) of S. 47 of the Act of 1963 empowers the Director to require a Market Committee to take into consideration (i) any objection which appears to the Director to exist to the doing of anything which is about to be done, or is being done, by such Market Committee, or (ii) any information which the Director is able to furnish, and which appears to the Director to necessitate the doing of anything by the Market Committee and to make a written reply, to the director within a reasonable time stating its reasons for not doing or not desisting from doing anything. Similarly, S. 48 of the Act of 1993 empowers the State government to call for proceedings of Market Committee and to pass orders thereon. S. 49 of the Act of 1963 provides for acquisition of land for the purposes of this act. It provides that the State Government may acquire the land within the market area which in its opinion is needed for the purpose of the Act. S. 49 of the Act of 1963 provides for acquisition of land for the purposes of this act. It provides that the State Government may acquire the land within the market area which in its opinion is needed for the purpose of the Act. Sub-S. (2) of Sec. 49 provides that such land shall be transferred by the State Government to the Market committee on payment of the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition act, 1894 and on such transfer the land shall vest in the Market Committee. Sec. 52 of the Act of 1963 empowers the State Government to declare that a market area shall cease to be such area or divide a market area into two or more separate market areas. S. 53 of the Act of 1963 deals with situation where a market area has been denotified or has been excluded from the market area. It provides that first effect of cessation of market area shall be that Market Committee shall stand dissolved and the member of the Market Committee shall vacate their office and the unexpended balance of the Market Committee Fund and other property shall vest in the State Government. Sub-clause (2) of S. 53 provides that where any area is excluded under S. 6 from a market area for which a Market Committee has been established and such area is not included in any other market area or declared to be a market area so much of the Market Committee Fund and other property vesting in the Market Committee as the State Government may by order in writing direct to vest the said property or fund in the State Government. The State government shall credit to the State Agricultural Produce Markets Fund such sum as in its opinion represents the fund and property vesting in it under sub-S. (1) or (2 ). For the convenience and ready reference Secs. 52 and 53 of Act of 1963 are reproduced as under :"s. 52. Power to denotify or divide Market Area :- Subject to the procedure laid down in S. 5, the State Government may, by a notification in the Official gazette, declare that a market area shall cease to be such area or divide a market area into two or more separate market areas. Power to denotify or divide Market Area :- Subject to the procedure laid down in S. 5, the State Government may, by a notification in the Official gazette, declare that a market area shall cease to be such area or divide a market area into two or more separate market areas. S. 53 : Effect of Denotification or Exclusion of Market Area :- (1) Where a market area ceases to be a market area, - (a) any market established therein shall cease to be a market, (b) the Market Committee or Committees established for the market area shall stand dissolved and the following consequences shall ensue namely :- (i) the members of the Committee or Committees shall vacate their office; (ii) the unexpended balance of the Market Committee Fund and other property and liabilities of the Market Committee shall vest in the State government : provided that the State Government shall not be liable to discharge the liabilities so vesting in so far as the same exceed the unexpended balance of the Market committee Fund and the value of the property vesting in the Government. (2) Where any area is excluded under S. 6 from a market area for which a market Committee has been established and such area is not included in any other market area or declared to be a market area so much of the Market Committee Fund and other property vesting in the Market Committee as the State Government may by order in writing direct shall vest in the State Government. (3) The State Government shall credit to the State Agricultural Produce Markets Fund such sum as in its opinion represents the fund and property vesting in it under sub-S. (1) or (2 ). " ( 7 ) BEFORE dealing with the main controversy it would be necessary to address to the question if the market yard can be denotified. In fact, there is no controversy on this point in the present Special Civil Application. The controversy on the point is set at rest by the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rameshchandra Kachardas porwal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , reported in AIR 1981 SC 1127 . In fact, there is no controversy on this point in the present Special Civil Application. The controversy on the point is set at rest by the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rameshchandra Kachardas porwal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , reported in AIR 1981 SC 1127 . The Apex Court while dealing with the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, held that S. 5 authoritses the establishment of a principal market and one or more subsidiary markets and power to establish a principal market or a subsidiary market carries with it the power to disestablish, considering that the power given by S. 5 of the Act of 1963 to establish principal or subsidiary market may be exercised in view of the provisions of Secs. 14 and 21 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act. In the present case, S. 7 (2) of the Gujarat agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, empowers the Director to declare any enclosure, building or locality in any market area to be a principal market yard and any other enclosure, building or locality to be a sub-market yard. So it carries power to establish or denotify. It is to be born in mind that on the formation of the State of Gujarat, the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 has been made applicable to the state of Gujarat. ( 8 ) ON analysing the scheme of the Act of 1963 it clearly emerges that with a view to provide for better regulation of buying and selling agricultural produce, by the growers a machinery is provided which includes constitution of Market committee, declaration of market area, declaration of market yard, autonomy to market Committee, with limited control of the State Government. Any area big or small can be declared as market area. The whole of the market area is not the place where traders or licensees can be allowed to carry on their trading business. If one is allowed to carry on business anywhere the Market Committee will not be able to control and levy fee within the market area. Thus, the traders and licensees are only required to trade in the market yard or in any specified place in the market area. Thus, there is clear distinction between market area and market yard. A market area is declared under S. 6 of the Act of 1963. Thus, the traders and licensees are only required to trade in the market yard or in any specified place in the market area. Thus, there is clear distinction between market area and market yard. A market area is declared under S. 6 of the Act of 1963. S. 7 of the Act of 1963 provides that for each area there shall be different market yards. A Market Committee is created and it exists for managing the affairs of the market area for achieving the object of the Act. Therefore, if a market area for any reason ceases to exist, the market Committee as a consequence will have no job and it will loose its existence, but if a market yard ceases to exist for any reason say on account of denotification, the other market yards remains and so there is market area and job for Market committee. Therefore, the legislature under S. 53 of the Act of 1963 has provided effect of denotification or exclusion of market area - the market established will cease to be a market, the Market Committee shall stand dissolved, and fund and the property shall vest in the Government. Such property in the event of new Market committee being constituted shall be transferred to it as provided under S. 53 of the Act of 1963. But the legislature has not provided the effect of denotification or exclusion of market yard, for the obvious reason that other market and the Market committee does not cease to exist and therefore, the question of divesting of the property from the Market Committee and vesting in State Government does not arise. Therefore, a Market Committee on denotification of its one of market yards does not cease to exist and continues to be an independent legal entity with limited supervisory control of the State Government and will be competent to hold, lease, sell or otherwise transfer property as provided under S. 10 of the Act of 1963, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. Therefore, the State Government was in error in holding that subject land constituting the market yard on being denotified vests in the State Government. S. 53 of the Act of 1963 refers to vesting of property in State Government on denotification of the market area and not market yard. Therefore, the State Government was in error in holding that subject land constituting the market yard on being denotified vests in the State Government. S. 53 of the Act of 1963 refers to vesting of property in State Government on denotification of the market area and not market yard. Thus, in my view on denotification of any enclosure, building or locality in any market area continues to vest in concerned Market Committee, and such Market committee is competent to sell as otherwise transfer the property in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1963 and other relevant provisions of law. ( 9 ) IT is next contended that the petitioner-Market Committee has taken the decision to sell the land mala fidely for the personal benefit of the members of the executive Committee and against the interest of the farmers. The apprehension appears to be misplaced. It is evident from the scheme of the Act, that the sufficient safeguards have been provided to deal with such situation. It is suffice to say that the Director has power to hold an inquiry on his own motion by himself or by the officer authorised into the affairs of the Market Committee. Section 47 of the Act of 1963 empowers the Director to call for proceedings of the Market Committee which includes the proceeding for the decision with respect to sale of the land. Section 58 of the Act of 1963, empowers the State Government to call for proceeding of the Market Committee and to pass orders thereon. In view of the controlling power of the Director and the State Government apprehension of the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner-Market Committee may misuse its power for sale of the land is misplaced. ( 10 ) THE contention of the learned A. G. P. that in Annexure b-2 inadvertently wrong section has been quoted and in fact this Notification is under S. 52 and not under S. 7 (2) of the Act of 1963, has no substance. It appears that it is an afterthought and without any basis. Even if it is considered that there is an inadvertent error in quoting S. 7 (2) instead of S. 52, it may be noticed that in the notification specific word market Yard has been used which only refers to S. 7 (2 ). It appears that it is an afterthought and without any basis. Even if it is considered that there is an inadvertent error in quoting S. 7 (2) instead of S. 52, it may be noticed that in the notification specific word market Yard has been used which only refers to S. 7 (2 ). ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, this Special Civil Application is allowed and the order of the Deputy Secretary dated 12-5-1993 Annexure f is quashed and set aside. The petitioner-Market Committee is directed to take afresh decision in the matter for sale of the subject land and the same may also be sent to the Director, Agriculture, Marketing and Rural Finance. It will be open for the Director if at all necessary to put reasonable fetters on the decision of the Market Committee by reasonable conditions after hearing the representatives of the Committee. Ruleis made absolute as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. .