Judgment D.A. Mehta, J.—The scope of the controversy being limited, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities is directed to waive service on behalf of the respondent authorities. 2. The petitioner is a Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (the BPT Act). The petitioner is owning various agricultural lands and is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act). Under a Deed registered on 06.08.2005 the petitioner purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 830/P/1, admeasuring 0.29.34 hectors and Survey No. 830/5, admeasuring 0.30.35 hectors, situated at Kanknol, Taluka Himatnagar, Dist. Sabarkantha. Necessary entries came to be mutated in revenue records on 20.04.2007 being Entry No. 15737 in relation to the first parcel of land and Entry No. 12972 of 20.09.2005 in relation to the second survey number. 3. The aforesaid mutation entries came to be cancelled by Mamlatdar, Himatnagar on the ground that there was breach of provisions of Section 63 of the Act and accordingly proceedings under Section 84C of the Act were initiated. The order dated 06.09.2007 made by the Mamlatdar was carried in appeal before Deputy Collector, who dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 14.11.2007. The petitioner preferred revision application before District Collector, Sabarkantha being Revision Application No. 96 of 2007. Vide order dated 06.12.2008 the said authority rejected the revision application. 4. The order dated 06.09.2007 made by the Mamlatdar was carried in appeal before Deputy Collector, who dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 14.11.2007. The petitioner preferred revision application before District Collector, Sabarkantha being Revision Application No. 96 of 2007. Vide order dated 06.12.2008 the said authority rejected the revision application. 4. The reasons, which have weighed with the said authorities as appearing in the order, are : (i) That the various lands held by the petitioner-Trust in other districts are standing in the name of Pramukhshree Shastri Narayanswarupdasji Guru Yagnapurusdasji whereas the land in question has been purchased by the Trust, through the Power of Attorney Holder of the President and the Board of Trustees of the Trust; (ii) That there are no agricultural lands in the name of Power of Attorney Holder; (iii) That the petitioner is required to obtain permission under Section 63 of the Act from the Collector but no such permission has been obtained under Section 63 of the Act nor has the Trust obtained a certificate under Section 63 of the Act; (iv) Therefore, because the Trust is granted a certificate under Section 88-B of the Act and is holding agricultural lands in other districts of the State it cannot be stated that there is no violation of provisions of the Act. The Collector further holds that if the submission made by the petitioner is accepted there would be no requirement to seek permission under Section 63 of the Act in the State of Gujarat. That every holder of certificate under Section 88-B of the Act is required to obtain permission under Section 63 of the Act in relation to purchase of any other parcel of land, other than the land for which certificate under Section 88-B of the Act has been granted. The revision application has been rejected accordingly with the aforesaid reasons. 5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Trust submitted that the entire approach of the respondent authorities is unwarranted in law considering the provisions of Section 63 of the Act. It was submitted that no sale is valid in favour of a non-agriculturist unless requisite permission is obtained which means that the purchaser has to be an agriculturist. 5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Trust submitted that the entire approach of the respondent authorities is unwarranted in law considering the provisions of Section 63 of the Act. It was submitted that no sale is valid in favour of a non-agriculturist unless requisite permission is obtained which means that the purchaser has to be an agriculturist. In other words, according to the learned Senior Advocate, in a case where the transaction was between an agriculturist and an agriculturist Section 63 was not attracted and there was no question of the sale in question being treated as invalid. That as accepted by the Collector in the impugned order dated 06.12.2009 the Trust is already holding agricultural lands and is also a registered Trust holding certificate under Section 88-B of the Act. Therefore, there is no requirement for the Trust to seek any permission under Section 63 of the Act. 6. In relation to the finding regarding Power of Attorney not being an agriculturist it was submitted that the said reasoning is fallacious in law, the authority having not understood the relationship between the person granting the power to the attorney and the rights of the Power of Attorney Holder. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside directing the respondent authorities to mutate the record of rights and enter the name of the Trust as lawful owner of the land in question. Dated 24.06.2009 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities, after extensively referring to provisions of the Act, submitted that the impugned orders do not call for any interference. It was further submitted that as the certificate issued under Section 88-B of the Act was in the name of a person different from the person who has purchased the land in question necessary permission under Section 63 of the Act had to be obtained compulsorily. That even certificate under Section 88-B of the Act has to be obtained prior to the purchase. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, therefore, submitted that the transaction in question was invalid in law in absence of prior permission. In support of the submissions made, reliance has been placed on Apex Court decision in the case of Narayan Bhimji Vadangale & Anr. vs. Hukumchand Chunilal Thole & Anr., 1992 (1) GLH 135 (SC). 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, therefore, submitted that the transaction in question was invalid in law in absence of prior permission. In support of the submissions made, reliance has been placed on Apex Court decision in the case of Narayan Bhimji Vadangale & Anr. vs. Hukumchand Chunilal Thole & Anr., 1992 (1) GLH 135 (SC). 8. The orders made by the respondent authorities cannot be sustained for the reasons that follow hereinafter. Taking up the last contention first. The decision of the Apex Court, on which reliance has been placed, was in context of finding recorded by the High Court of Bombay, to the effect that a partnership firm is an inanimate entity incapable of personal cultivation of agricultural land, and hence, not entitled to purchase agricultural land, was not accepted by the Apex Court holding that a firm is a compendious name of persons who have come together, namely the partners, who can cultivate the land personally and can thus hold agricultural land. It is not possible to apply the principles of parity in the facts of the present case. A Trust is merely an instrument and the properties are held by the trustees for and on behalf and for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Therefore, a Trust cannot be equated in any manner whatsoever with a partnership firm. 9. The contention that a Power of Attorney Holder is different from the President and the other trustees, who manage the trust, is also based on a fallacious premise. As a person, an individual, he is different, but a Power of Attorney Holder can never claim the property to be belonging to the Power of Attorney Holder and ownership rights are never vested in the person in whose favour a Power of Attorney is executed. He merely acts as an agent for and on behalf of the person or persons who have executed the Power of Attorney. Every document has to be individually examined to ascertain the extent of power and rights granted to an attorney. A power granted to carry out a transaction, or a series of transactions, has to be appreciated in the context in which such document is executed. One of the most relevant factor for inquiry would be the source of funds utilised for purchase of the property. A power granted to carry out a transaction, or a series of transactions, has to be appreciated in the context in which such document is executed. One of the most relevant factor for inquiry would be the source of funds utilised for purchase of the property. The question to be posed is : have the monies come from the Power of Attorney Holder, or have the monies been paid by the executant of the Power of Attorney ? This would establish the right of ownership. In the present case the Power of Attorney Holder is the General Secretary of the Trust, namely, an employee of the Trust. The said reasoning, which has heavily weighed with the respondent authorities, cannot be accepted in the circumstances. 10. The respondent authorities have categorically accepted that the trust is an agriculturist, holds various parcels of agricultural lands, and is also issued a certificate under Section 88-B of the Act in relation to the said lands. Therefore, once the misconception as to the role of Power of Attorney Holder is cleared there is no other reasoning which is germane as can be seen from the impugned orders made by the authorities which would stand in way of the petitioner being entitled to claim that the land in question is validly transferred and held by the petitioner-Trust in its name. 11. A contention was raised in the course hearing that the certificate under Section 88-B of the Act has also to be obtained prior in point of time and in the event no such certificate is available permission under Section 63 of the Act has to be obtained by the Trust before purchasing agricultural land. This submission also does not merit acceptance considering the plain language of Section 88-B of the Act. Furthermore, reliance on Annexure-F, which is the earlier certificate granted under Section 88-B of the Act to the Trust itself indicates that no such prior permission is required. To the contrary till the point of time the property is held by the Trust an authority cannot certify that the income from the lands, mentioned in the schedule, is appropriated for the purpose of the objects of the Trust. It is only after the property is held by the Trust as an owner that the question of obtaining a certificate under Section 88-B of the Act would arise. 12. It is only after the property is held by the Trust as an owner that the question of obtaining a certificate under Section 88-B of the Act would arise. 12. In the circumstances, on none of the grounds, stated by the authorities in the impugned orders or urged at the time of hearing, can the respondent authorities succeed in denying the claim of the petitioner to mutate the necessary entry in the record of rights in relation to the agricultural land. All the three impugned orders are, therefore, hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to make the necessary entry in the name of the petitioner-Trust as being the owner of the agricultural land in question. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 10 (ten) weeks from today, without waiting for a certified copy of the judgment. 13. The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.