JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner Shri Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal, Promoter of the (proposed) Kalptaru Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as "the proposed Society”) through his Power-of-Attorney holder Baldevbhai Ramabhai, has challenged the order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the Collector (Annexure-B), and the order dated 17.7.2007 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the GRT”) in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/33/2002 (Annexure-A). 2. As per the case of the petitioner, the land bearing Survey No.70/1 admeasuring 88 gunthas and the land bearing Survey No.69/1 admeasuring 24 gunthas situated at Village Saej, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar originally belonged to one Shri Parshotamdas Ishwarbhai Patel and Mohanbhai Prahladbhai Patel respectively. The said two owners had executed two separate agreements to sell the said lands on 7.2.1981 in favour of five persons named Patel Baldevbhai Ramabhai, Patel Ramanbhai Jeevatram, Patel Kiranbhai Gordanbhai, Latifbhai Allanoorbhai Nagori, and Babubhai Manilal Sheth. It appears that thereafter four sale deeds came to be executed in respect of the said lands in favour of the proposed Society through its main promoter Shri Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal as per Annexure-A colly. One sale deed was executed by the said Parshotamdas Ishwarbhai Patel in favour of the proposed Society on 2.12.1981 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.70/1 admeasuring 3188 sq. mtrs., out of 3388 sq. mtrs. The second sale deed was executed by Parshotamdas Ishwarbhai Patel on 10.4.1985 in favour of the proposed society in respect of the land bearing Survey No.70/1 admeasuring 200 sq. mtrs. only. The third sale deed was executed by Patel Mohanbhai Prahaladbhai in favour of the proposed society on 5.3.1990 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.69/1/A admeasuring 2428 sq. mtrs. Another sale deed was executed by one Patel Revabhai Nathubhai in favour of the proposed society on 24.7.1990 in respect of the Survey No.70/2 and No.69/1 totally admeasuring 5261 sq. mtrs. The said sale deeds are on record at Annexure-A colly. It appears that subsequently, the said proposed Society through his promoter Shri Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal submitted an application under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act”) seeking permission to purchase the lands bearing Survey Nos.69/1/A, 69/1/B, 70/1, and 70/2 with retrospective effect for using the same for residential/non-agricultural purpose. The said permission was refused by the Prant Officer vide the order dated 10.11.1995 (Annexure-R/1 colly). 3. The said permission was refused by the Prant Officer vide the order dated 10.11.1995 (Annexure-R/1 colly). 3. The Mamlatdar and ALT thereafter initiated the proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act against the original owners and the proposed Society, however, the said proceedings were dropped as per the order dated 5.12.1995 (Annexure-C). The said order passed by the Mamlatdar was challenged in Appeal before the Deputy Collector and the said appeal was allowed vide the order dated 12.4.1999, whereby the Deputy Collector had remanded the case to the Mamlatdar and ALT. After the remand, the Mamlatdar and ALT vide the order dated 3.8.1999 again dropped the proceedings under Section 84C. The said order came to be challenged by the respondent No.2 Patel Visabhai Revabhai by filing the Appeal being No.114/2000 under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act before the Assistant Collector, who vide the order dated 19.10.2001 allowed the same and set aside the order dated 3.8.1999 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT. The Assistant Collector further directed that the lands shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances (Annexure-B). The proposed Society through its Promoter, therefore, filed revision application being TEN/BA/33/2002 before the GRT, who vide the order dated 17.7.2007 dismissed the same (Annexure-E). The petitioner, therefore, has filed the present petition. The petitioner has filed further affidavit producing on record certain orders, which according to the petitioner, were not in his possession when the petition was filed. 4. In the first limb of his arguments, the learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore for the petitioner submitted that the registered sale deeds in question are required to be treated as having been executed in favour of the individual Promoter Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal as the proposed society was not a legal entity, and that since the said Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal was an agriculturist, there was no violation of Section 63 warranting action under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act. Relying upon various decision of this Court in case of Ramji Mandir Narsinhji & Ors. Vs. Narsinh Nagar Alias Tekri Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1979 GLR 801 , in case of Manekalal Mansukhbhai Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah & Anr., reported in 2002(1) GLH 290 and in case of Natal Land and Colonization Co. Vs. Narsinh Nagar Alias Tekri Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1979 GLR 801 , in case of Manekalal Mansukhbhai Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah & Anr., reported in 2002(1) GLH 290 and in case of Natal Land and Colonization Co. Ltd. and Pauline Colliery and Development Syndicate Limited, reported in 1904 House of Lords (Privy Council) 120 he submitted that when the proposed Society is not considered to be a legal entity, the sale deeds were required to be treated as having been executed in favour of the promoters. Mr. Thakore in the alternative submitted that if the proposed society was treated as a non-entity, there was no conveyance in favour of any person and therefore also there was no violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. According to him all the promoters/members of the proposed Society were the agriculturists and the Assistant Collector and the GRT had committed an error in holding that there was violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. In this regard, Mr. Thakore has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Friends Land Development Co. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., 2006(3) GLR 2599 and in case of Bechar Arjan and Company Vs. Assistant Collector, reported in 1996(3) GCD 705 . He further submitted that the permission sought by the proposed society under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act was a bona fide mistake, and merely because the permission was refused by the Prant Officer, it could not be said that there was violation of Section 63. Challenging the locus standi of the respondent No.2 Patel Visabhai Revabhai to file the appeal against the order of Mamlatdar and ALT, he submitted that the person, who was party to the sale deeds, after pocketing the money could not have challenged the order of the Mamlatdar on the ground that the sale made by him was invalid. In this regard, Mr. Thakore has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Rinki Shashikant Gandhi Vs. Mamlatdar Vadodara Taluka and Ors., reported in 2012(2) GLR 1275 and in case of Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in 2011(3) GLH 98 . In this regard, Mr. Thakore has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Rinki Shashikant Gandhi Vs. Mamlatdar Vadodara Taluka and Ors., reported in 2012(2) GLR 1275 and in case of Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in 2011(3) GLH 98 . He also submitted that the order of the Mamlatdar dated 3.8.1999 was challenged by the said respondent No.2 by filing appeal on 3.11.1999, which was beyond the prescribed period of limitation, and there being no application for condonation of delay filed by him, such an appeal was also not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ragho Singh Vs. Mohan Singh and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 717 . Lastly he submitted that the proceedings initiated by the Mamlatdar under Section 84C were after a long delay inasmuch as the sale deeds were executed in the year 1990, whereas the proceedings were initiated by the Mamlatdar in the year 1995. Such proceedings were not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 71 and of this Court in case of Bhaniben Makanbhai Tandel Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in 1992(1) GLH 93 . He also submitted that the concerned authority was bound to have knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deeds in question, in view of Section 135C of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and in view of the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in case of Dilboo (Smt.) (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. Vs. Dhanraji (Smt.) (Dead) and Ors., reported in 2000(7) SCC 702 . 5. Per contra the learned AGP Mr.Patel for the respondent authorities submitted that the very fact that the proposed society had applied for permission under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act with retrospective effect, established that such a permission was required, and that the order of the Prant Officer rejecting the said permission having not been challenged by the petitioner, the same had become final. Taking the Court to various documents, more particularly the sale deeds, Mr.Patel submitted that in all the sale deeds the purchaser was shown as the proposed society and not the promoter Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal and that the society being not legal entity in view of Section 37 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, such a sale could not be said to be in favour of an agriculturist as contemplated in Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. According to him, the said sale could not be treated as the sale in favour of the promoters as all through out the proposed society has been mentioned as the purchaser of the lands in question. Mr. Patel has also submitted that the petition at the instance of the promoter Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal was not maintainable in the eye of law, and the petition also suffers from the vice of nonjoinder of necessary parties as the promoters or the members of the proposed society, who were the confirming parties to the sale deeds, have not been joined as the party respondents in the petition. He also submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the authorities, this Court may not interfere with the same in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal as the promoter of the proposed society through his power-of-attorney holder Baldevbhai Ramabhai. The petitioner at the time of filing of the petition appears to have produced a copy of the general power-of-attorney executed on 4.6.1999 by five persons named, Patel Ramanbhai Jeevatram, Patel Kiranbhai Gordandas, Paresh Babubhai Manilal Sheth, Ghanshyambhai Trikambhai Patel, Latifbhai Allanoorbhai Nagori, in favour of Baldevbhai Ramabhai Patel for carrying out the acts and deeds as mentioned in the said document. Apart from the fact that the said power-of-attorney was executed by the said five persons in favour of Baldevbhai in June 1999, there is not a whisper about the power conferred on the said Baldevbhai by the said Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal as the promoter of the proposed Society. As such there is no mention about the proposed society at all in the so-called document of power-of-attorney. As such there is no mention about the proposed society at all in the so-called document of power-of-attorney. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal as the promoter of the proposed society, through the power-of-attorney holder Baldevbhai could not be said to be legally maintainable, and the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability alone. 7. So far as the legal entity of the proposed society and the power of the cooperative society to hold the property is concerned, it may be mentioned that Section 37 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, clinches the issue. The said provision reads as under:- “Section 37.A society on its registration shall be a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, with perpetual succession and a common seal, and with, power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, to enter into contracts, to institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings, and to do all such things as are necessary for the purpose for which it is constituted.” 8. In view of the said provision, a society becomes a body corporate with perpetual succession and common seal only on its registration, and a society would have the power to acquire, hold and dispose of the property, or to enter into contracts, to institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings only on its registration and not otherwise. Hence, the proposed society, which was not registered at the relevant time, and is not registered even as on the date, under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act could neither acquire, hold or dispose of any property, nor enter into any contract, nor institute or defend any legal proceedings, in view of Section 37 of the said Act. The Court therefore is of the opinion that the petition, even if is treated to have been filed by the proposed Society and not by the Promoter through the power-of-attorney holder, then also could not be said to be maintainable in view of the Section 37 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. 9. Having said that, let us examine the merits of the present petition. As stated earlier, the sale deeds in respect of which the proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act were initiated, were executed in favour of the proposed Society through its main promoter Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal. Though it was sought to be contended by the learned Sr. 9. Having said that, let us examine the merits of the present petition. As stated earlier, the sale deeds in respect of which the proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act were initiated, were executed in favour of the proposed Society through its main promoter Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal. Though it was sought to be contended by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Thakore that the said sale deeds were required to be treated as having been executed in favour of the promoter Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal who was an agriculturist and not in favour of the proposed society, the said submission cannot be accepted. As rightly pointed out by the learned AGP Mr. Patel, in all the sale deeds, the proposed society has been described as the purchaser and not the promoter Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal. In some of the sale deeds, the other promoters/members of the proposed society have also been shown as the confirming party, who are as such not before this Court. Hence, all the said sale deeds are required to be treated as having been executed and were in fact, executed in favour of the proposed society only, which had no power to enter into any contract or acquire the property as per Section 37 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. Such sale deeds being in favour of the proposed society, which did not have any legal entity, could not be said to be an agriculturist under the Tenancy Act, and therefore were executed clearly in violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. 10. The submission of Mr. Thakore that if the society was treated as non-entity there was no question of obtaining permission under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act also cannot be accepted. The proposed society through its promoter Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal had already sought permission under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act for the purchase of the land in question with retrospective effect, however, the said permission was not granted by the Prant Officer as per the order dated 10.11.1995 (Annexure-R/1). The said order has remained unchallenged at the instance of the promoter Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal. The said order has remained unchallenged at the instance of the promoter Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal. If according to the petitioner, the said promoter Ghanshyambhai Trikamlal and other promoters were agriculturists, and the said sale deeds were required to be treated as having been executed in favour of the promoters, there was no need for the petitioner to seek permission on behalf of the proposed society under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. 11. The submission of Mr. Thakore that if the sale deeds executed in favour of the non-existent proposed society were held to be invalid, the said conveyances were deemed to have been made in favour of the promoters, has no legs to stand. Mr. Thakore has not been able to substantiate the said submission as to how the title of the property would pass on the promoters if the sale in favour of the proposed society was held to be invalid. Much reliance has been placed by Mr. Thakore on the decision of Supreme Court in the case Manekalal Mansukhbhai Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah & Anr. (supra) to submit that the title would pass over the promoters when the sale is held to be invalid in favour of the proposed society, however, on the close reading of the said judgment, it transpires that no such proposition has been laid by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. In the said case, the plaintiff Cooperative Society after its registration under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, had filed the suit against the defendant Trust seeking specific performance of an agreement of lease executed by the Trust in favour of one Nanubhai in his personal capacity, and who incidentally was one of the promoters of the plaintiff Society. There was no assignment of right made by said Nanubhai in favour of the said Society in respect of the agreement in question. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court held inter alia that the Society becomes competent to acquire or hold property only when it is registered and not otherwise, and that in absence of any assignment of the rights of Nanubhai flowing from the agreement in favour of the Society, the Society was not competent to file the suit for specific performance of the agreement. There is nothing in the said judgment to suggest that the title of the property would pass over to the promoters, if the conveyance deed executed in favour of the proposed Society was held to be invalid, as sought to be submitted by Mr. Thakore. 12. As regards the locus of the respondent No.2 to challenge the order of the Mamlatdar before the Assistant Collector, it was submitted by Mr. Thakore that he being the party to the sale deeds in question could not have contended that the said sale deeds were illegal, after pocketing the money. Though there is some substance in the said submission, it loses its significance as no such contention with regard to the locus standi of the respondent No.2, was raised by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector or before the GRT. Even otherwise the respondent No.2 claiming to be one of the co-owners of the lands in question, would be a party interested, and therefore, entitled to make an application under Section 84C and file appeal under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act. It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that the order dated 3.8.1999 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT was sought to be revised by the Assistant Collector under Section 76A of the Tenancy Act, however, the respondent No.2 having filed the appeal under Section 74 against the said order, the proceedings under Section 76A were not proceeded further, and the said appeal preferred by the respondent No.2 was decided on merits by the Assistant Collector. 13. The contention with regard to delay in initiating the proceedings under Section 84C, also has hardly any substance. There is nothing on record to suggest that any revenue entry was effected in the revenue records in respect of the said sale deeds. The said transactions appear to have been noticed by the respondent authorities, when the permission was sought by the proposed society to purchase the lands in question with retrospective effect under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and rejected on 10.11.1995. The said proceedings under Section 84C having already been initiated in 1995, it could not be said that there was delay on the part of the Mamlatdar and ALT in initiating the proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act. 14. The said proceedings under Section 84C having already been initiated in 1995, it could not be said that there was delay on the part of the Mamlatdar and ALT in initiating the proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act. 14. In that view of the matter, the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the GRT being just and proper and the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and therefore, is dismissed. 15. The request to extend the interim order made by the learned Advocate Mr.Purohit for the petitioner to enable the petitioner to approach the higher forum is rejected as the petition is dismissed on merits for the reasons stated herein above.