Judgment Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—Special Civil Application No. 1035 of 2000 has been filed by the Petitioner — Trustnagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner Society”) under Articles 14, 19, 300-A, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and also under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Bombay Tenancy Act”) as well as under the provisions of Gujarat Deveasthan Inam Abolition Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Abolition Act”) for the prayers inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector at Annexure-A and the order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat at Annexure-B, on the grounds stated in the memo of petition. 2. Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2000 has been filed by the petitioner — Lavanya Co-operative Housing Society Limited under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 and under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and also under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 for the prayer inter alia that the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector and Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department at Annexure-N and Annexure-O may be quashed and set aside declaring that the Petitioner Society is an unauthorized holder of the land within the meaning of the Abolition Act. 3. Similarly, Special Civil Application No. 1161 of 2000 has been filed by the Petitioner — Lavanya Co-operative Housing Society Limited for the prayer inter alia that the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector and Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department at Annexure-B and Annexure- C may be quashed and set aside declaring that the Petitioner Society is an unauthorized holder of the land within the meaning of the Abolition Act. 4. Heard learned Counsel Shri M.C. Bhatt for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1035 of 2000, learned Counsel Shri A.J. Patel for the Petitioner in Special Civil Application Nos. 1158 of 2000 and 1161 of 2000, and learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas for the Respondent — State Authorities. 4. Heard learned Counsel Shri M.C. Bhatt for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1035 of 2000, learned Counsel Shri A.J. Patel for the Petitioner in Special Civil Application Nos. 1158 of 2000 and 1161 of 2000, and learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas for the Respondent — State Authorities. No one has remained present for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in Special Civil Application No. 1035 of 2000. 5. The facts briefly summarized are that the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1035 of 2000 is a registered Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The Petitioner Society purchased the land (tenancy rights) bearing Survey Nos. 225, 226, 228/1 and 228/2 situated in the seam of village Vasna of Ahmedabad District from the Respondent No. 2 by a registered sale deed. The Respondent No. 5 — Deputy Collector initiated the proceedings in purported exercise of power under Section 4(1)(c) of the Abolition Act numbered as 57/1979 Devasthan Inam, Vasna and 76/1979 Devasthan Inam, Vasna. The contentions, which have been raised by the Petitioner Society were partially accepted accepting that the petitioner is occupying the occupation and possession of the land, but the occupancy and the possession of the Petitioner Society is held as invalid and against the provisions of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act vide order dated 29.10.1980 (at Annexure-A). Therefore, the matter was carried further before the Respondent No. 6 on various grounds, and Respondent No. 6 — Deputy Secretary (Appeals), by the impugned order at Annexure-B, has confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector, which has lead to the present petition on the grounds stated in the memo of petition. Learned Counsel Shri M.C. Bhatt referred to the order at Annexure-A and Annexure-B and submitted that the Petitioner Society has been granted NA permission in 1962 and the construction of the houses have been made after the formation of the Petitioner Society in or about 1967. Learned Counsel Shri M.C. Bhatt, therefore, submitted that the name of the Petitioner Society was also mutated in the year 1969 and the land in question was included in the limit of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (“AMC”) in the year 1960. Therefore, learned Counsel Shri M.C. Bhatt submitted that the first aspect that Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act has been violated, cannot be accepted as it will not be attracted. Therefore, learned Counsel Shri M.C. Bhatt submitted that the first aspect that Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act has been violated, cannot be accepted as it will not be attracted. He pointedly referred to the provisions of Section 64-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act and submitted that Section 64-A was in force, which read as under: “Exemption to sales by or in favour of Co-operative Societies - deleted by Gujarat 21/1987” 6. Therefore, learned Counsel Shri Bhatt submitted that Section 64-A provided that the sales effected in favour of the Co-operative Society will not be hit by the provisions of Section 63, and therefore, Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act will not be attracted at all till the aforesaid provisions of Section 64-A was deleted subsequently. He has also referred to the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat (Coram: M.P. Thakkar, J.) reported in 1977 GLR 700 - Maneja vs. State of Gujarat and ors. in support of his submission. He emphasized the observation that Section 64-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act and the sales to Bombay Co-operative Society is not effected by the provisions of Sections 63 and 64 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. He emphasized the observations; “On a plain reading of Section 64-A, it is evident that Sections 63 and 64 of the Tenancy Act do not apply to sales effected either by a society which is constituted under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, or in respect of sales made in favour of such a society. The GRT, however, on an impossible reading of Section 64-A accepted a distorted interpretation canvassed on behalf of the State and accepted the contention that what was exempted was a transaction of sale made “under” the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925.” 7. He, therefore, submitted that the transaction by or in favour of the Co-operative Society has been exempted, whether such Co-operative Society is a vendor or a vendee in respect of an agricultural land. Similarly, learned Counsel Shri Bhatt referred to the provisions of Section 88 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, which referred to the exemption to the government lands and certain other lands, and submitted that, as provided in Section 88-B, if any area, which the State Government may, by notification in an official gazette, specified as reserved for nonagricultural and industrial development, then Section 63 will not be attracted. He referred to the notification which provide for the areas reserved for non-agricultural and industrial development, which was by way of amendment w.e.f. 1.8.1956, and submitted that, as recorded in this, certain areas were specified for non-agricultural and industrial development, including the land situated within the limits of AMC. He referred to the notification provided for exemption, which reads: “15. Areas reserved for non-agricultural and industrial development.—The Tenancy Act, 1948 as amended by Bom. Act XIII of 1956 came into force from 1.8.1956. Simultaneously on that very day i.e. on 1.8.56 Government had issued a Notifin. R.D. No. TNC. 5156/101965-F dt. 1.8.1956 reserving the following areas for non-agricultural and industrial development: Areas within the limit of (1) Greater Bombay, (2) The Municipal Corporation of the cities of Poona and Ahmedabad, and (3) the minicipal boroughs of Thana, Kalyan, Surat, Sholapur and Hubli. In supersession of the above Notifn. I.e. G.N. In the R.D. No. TNC. 5156/101965-F, dated the 1st August 1956, the Government of Bombay has specified under sec. 88(b)— (1) the area, comprised in Greater Bombay immediately before the date of the commencement of the Greater Bombay Laws and the Bombay High Court (Declaration of Limits) (Amendment) Act, 1956; and (2) the areas within the limits of— (a) The Municipal Corporation of the cities of Poona and Ahmedabad, and. . . . . . . .” 8. He, therefore, submitted that, as the notification in respect of any such area or the land is issued, which is within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad as reserved for the nonagricultural and industrial development, the provisions of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act would not be applicable. Similarly, learned Counsel Shri Bhatt referred to the Abolition Act and submitted that Section 2(3) provide for ‘unauthorized holder’ in relation to a Devasthan land, means, a person in whom the ownership of such land vests permanently, whether by virtue of the operation of the tenancy law, would be a holder. He has also referred to Section 2(9) of the Abolition Act, which defined: “Inferior holder — means a person who is in possession of a Devasthan land whether by inheritance, or succession or valid transfer under the tenancy law or otherwise and who, being liable to pay assessment in cash or kind, holds such land, whether on payment of assessment or not.” 9. Therefore, learned Counsel Shri Bhatt submitted that, as the possession and occupation of the land in question has remained with the Petitioner and the transaction has taken place as stated above before the amendment in the Bombay Tenancy Act, Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act would not be attracted. He submitted that it cannot be said that there is any violation of the provisions of the Abolition Act in the facts and circumstances. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are therefore required to be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned Counsel Shri Bhatt also submitted that it is also well settled that the Revenue Officer, who is authorized under a different statute, then the powers under the special statute has to be exercised by him in a particular proceeding under the statute. He therefore submitted that the Deputy Collector has exercised the power under Section 4(1)(c) of the Abolition Act, which does not give him the power to decide any violation of the provisions of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. It is also a special statute or the Act, and any such issue could be decided in the proceedings under that particular statute. He submitted that the same fault or the mistake has been continued in the Appeal before the Secretary (Appeals). He referred to the orders and submitted that it has been observed specifically even in the impugned order at Annexure-B that the Petitioner Society had purchased the land (tenancy rights) with the approval, and the documents were executed on 24.2.1964 and 13.3.1967. He submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner Society was in occupation and possession, and therefore, the Petitioner Society had purchased the tenancy rights of the original land holder, who were given in inam, which is permissible. However, the contentions have not been appreciated only on the ground that there is no evidence with regard to the permanent tenancy, and the possession of the society is unauthorized though it has been admitted that it has been purchased by a registered sale deed by the Petitioner Society. However, the contentions have not been appreciated only on the ground that there is no evidence with regard to the permanent tenancy, and the possession of the society is unauthorized though it has been admitted that it has been purchased by a registered sale deed by the Petitioner Society. Further, learned Counsel Shri Bhatt submitted that the observations that it is violating Section 27 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, is also misconceived, as the Bombay Tenancy Act came into force in 1969, whereas the transaction, which has taken place much earlier, would not attract such provision of the Bombay Tenancy Act, and therefore also, the order requires to be set aside. 11. Learned Counsel Shri A.J. Patel who appears for the Petitioner — Lavanya Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Lavanya Co-operative Society”) in Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 1161 of 2000 has submitted that the case of the Petitioner — Lavanya Co-operative Society is also identical, and rather it stands on a better footing inasmuch as the Petitioner - Lavanya Co-operative Society has purchased the land in question by outright sale by executing a sale deed. For that purpose, he referred to the averments in the petitions to summarise the contentions raised by learned Counsel Shri M.C. Bhatt and submitted that he would adopt the submissions with regard to the inquiry under Section 4 of the Abolition Act as null and void and also the so called breach or violation of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Learned Counsel Shri Patel submitted that the Petitioner - Lavanya Co-operative Society was formed in the year 1961 and it had about 100 plots allotted to its members. The Petitioner - Lavanya Co-operative Society had purchased the land in question by a registered sale deed. He submitted that in fact the predecessor in title of Respondent No. 2 sold the land to one Haribhai Ambavidas Patel by a registered sale deed dated 23.12.1922 and the mutation entry was also recorded in the name of purchaser Haribhai Ambavidas Patel. Thereafter, the land was cultivated by him as an absolute owner for a long time. He submitted that in fact the predecessor in title of Respondent No. 2 sold the land to one Haribhai Ambavidas Patel by a registered sale deed dated 23.12.1922 and the mutation entry was also recorded in the name of purchaser Haribhai Ambavidas Patel. Thereafter, the land was cultivated by him as an absolute owner for a long time. Learned Counsel Shri Patel submitted that the Petitioner - Lavanya Co-operative Society purchased the land in question by a registered sale deed dated 9.3.1965, and thus, when the son of Haribhai Ambavidas Patel sold the land in question to the Petitioner - Lavanya Co-operative Society by a registered sale deed, the Petitioner - Lavanya Co-operative Society become the absolute owner and the purported exercise of power for inquiry under Section 4 of the Abolition Act and / or any alleged breach or violation of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act are misconceived. Learned Counsel Shri Patel submitted that, in fact, as per the Government Circular dated 21.7.1967, referring to Section 64-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, it has been specifically provided that the Co-operative Societies could enter into a transaction for purchase of the agricultural land, and the proceedings, which were initiated under Section 84(C), were not justified, for which, the circular was issued. He therefore submitted that, in view of the provisions of Section 64(A) and the circular dated 21.7.1967 at Annexure-D, make the position clear that Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act would not have any application with regard to the transaction in favour of the Petitioner - Lavanya Co-operative Society. He also referred to Annexure-E, which is a permission from the City Deputy Collector dated 26.5.1971 and submitted that the permission under Section 63 was also granted, and thereafter, the houses have been constructed on the land in question. Further, learned Counsel Shri Patel submitted that the land has been included within the limits of the AMC in the year 1960, and the plans were submitted to the Town Planning Officer, which were sanctioned, and thereafter the construction has been made. He submitted that NA permission has been granted vide order dated 18.1.1973 (Annexure-G). Further, learned Counsel Shri Patel submitted that the land has been included within the limits of the AMC in the year 1960, and the plans were submitted to the Town Planning Officer, which were sanctioned, and thereafter the construction has been made. He submitted that NA permission has been granted vide order dated 18.1.1973 (Annexure-G). Learned Counsel Shri Patel submitted that in an inquiry, the land in question was also included in the TP Scheme under the provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 and the certificate was also issued regarding the tenure and the right of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act. He, therefore, submitted that, once the NA permission has been granted, and as stated above, if the permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act was also obtained, the impugned orders are erroneous and misconceived, as the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act would not be attracted at all. He further submitted that, in any case, as observed by the High Court in a judgment reported in 2009(2) GLH 651 — Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Sanstha by his Pramukh vs. Thakore Umedji Nanaji and Ors., when the land is included in the TP Scheme, or NA permission is granted, the provisions of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act would not be attracted. It has been observed: “Held, Once the Land has already been converted into NA use, restriction under section 63 of Tenancy Act would cease to operate and consequent transfer could not be said to be hit by provisions of Tenancy Act — Powers exercised unreasonably without verification of position of land on site.” 12. Learned Counsel Shri Patel also referred to the provisions of Section 64-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act and the judgment of the High Court reported in 1977 GLR 700 - Maneja vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (Supra) and also the notification issued under Section 88 of the Bombay Tenancy Act to support the submissions made by learned Counsel Shri M.C. Bhatt that, by virtue of this notification, when the land is covered in the limits of AMC and by notification, it has been covered for nonagricultural and industrial purpose, the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act would not have any application. Learned Counsel Shri Patel has also submitted that, in view of the fact that the land in question has been outrightly purchased even before the Abolition Act came into force by registered sale deed, the provisions of the Abolition Act would not be attracted at all. He, therefore, submitted that, both the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 13. Learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas referred to the affidavit in reply and the provisions of the Abolition Act as well as the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act. He referred to Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act and submitted that the purchase of the land by the Petitioner Society is against the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act. He submitted that Section 64-A would be applicable only where the land is purchased by sale deed and not otherwise like transfer of the tenancy rights in respect of the land in Special Civil Application No. 1035 of 2000. He submitted that, as defined in Section 2(14) of the Abolition Act, the Petitioner Society is an unauthorized holder as it has purchased from the protected tenant, but had no right to transfer the land. He also submitted that the Transfer of Property Act refers to the development permission and does not affect the operation of other laws. 14. In view this rival submissions, it is required to be considered, whether the present petitions can be entertained or not. 15. As discussed herein above, the provisions of Section 64-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act read with the Circular dated 21.7.1967 at Annexure-B in Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2000 would make the position clear that the transaction of either outright purchase of the land in question by the Petitioner Society of Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 1161 of 2000 is much before the Abolition Act came and the purchase of tenancy right by the Petitioner Society in Special Civil Application No. 1035 of 2000 would not be hit by the provisions of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, and in view of the aforesaid Section 64-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act read with the Circular. In fact the Circular is specifically issued for clarification to avoid further proceedings under Section 84C. In fact the Circular is specifically issued for clarification to avoid further proceedings under Section 84C. Therefore, when such transaction, as discussed above has taken place, it would not attract the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act coupled with the fact that in case of the Petitioner — Society in Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 1161 of 2000, the permission under Section 63 has also been granted. There is hardly any substance in the submissions made by learned AGP, and the order, which referred to this aspect, cannot be sustained. Further, the Petitioner Society in Special Civil Application No. 1035 of 2000 has also purchased the tenancy right by registered sale deed, and, as provided in the definition of the ‘Authorized Holder’ and the ‘Inferior Holder’, the Petitioner Society is very much in possession and occupation of the land in question. Further, both the laws — Bombay Tenancy Act as well as the Abolition Act will have to be construed harmoniously. Section 23 of the Abolition Act clearly provide that the provisions of the tenancy law will govern the relationship of the landlord and the tenant, meaning thereby, the Bombay Tenancy Act will also have the application for the purpose of deciding the issue with regard to any such transaction of land. As discussed herein above, Section 63 will not have any application at all, and therefore, it cannot be said to be hit by Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. However, as rightly submitted by learned Counsel Shri M.C. Bhatt as well as learned Counsel Shri A.J. Patel that the land in question was included within the municipal limits of AMC, the permission has been obtained and development has been made earlier in point of time, and both the lands have also been included in the TP Scheme, and NA permissions have been granted, which would mean that, by passage of time, with further operation of law - like the Bombay Urban Development Act, 1977, when the TP Scheme has been framed, the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act will have to be construed and interpreted vis-a-vis such provision. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has in a judgment in case of Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Sanstha by his Pramukh vs. Thakore Umedji Nanaji and Ors. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has in a judgment in case of Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Sanstha by his Pramukh vs. Thakore Umedji Nanaji and Ors. (Supra) has also made the observations that when the NA permission has been granted or, with the passage of time, when the area is included in the TP Scheme, the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act will not have the application. Therefore, when the NA permission has been granted and when the land is covered under the municipal area and also the TP Scheme, the impugned orders cannot be sustained on the ground of any breach or violation of either the Abolition Act or the Bombay Tenancy Act. In fact, at the most, what was required, was the permission, which, as stated above, has also been obtained, and the construction and development has taken place over the years. Further, the occupation and the title of the Petitioner Society cannot be said to be illegal, and at the most, it was subject to some permission and procedure under the Bombay Tenancy Act, which has also been granted to the Petitioner Society in Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2000. 16. Therefore, considering the aforesaid provisions and the aforesaid statutes coupled with the passage of time resulting into a irreversible situation, which has emerged, which cannot be said to be illegal, the present petitions deserve to be allowed, and accordingly stands allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department at Annexure-A and Annexure-B in Special Civil Application No. 1035 of 2000, are hereby quashed and set aside. Similarly, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector and Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department at Annexure-N and Annexure-O in Special Civil Application No. 1158 of 2000 as well as the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department at Annexure-B and Annexure-C in Special Civil Application No. 1161 of 2000, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.