JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner – State of Gujarat, has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.11.1992 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal'), in Revision Application TEN B.A. No. 877 of 1989 filed by the applicant Swami Parmanandji against the order dated 23.10.1989 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Appeals Ahmedabad in Ceiling Appeal No. 23 of 1989. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that one Shri Lambenarayan Pavitranandji was holding the land admeasuring 50 acres 8 gunthas situated at village Sanathal Taluka Sanand. The said Lambenarayan having expired on 07.10.1961, the said land was inherited by the Swami Hariprakashanand Tirthaji on the basis of a will executed by the said Lambenarayanji. Accordingly, the said Hariprakashanandji became the Khedar of the Account No. 383 in respect of the said land, and the entry No. 2936 was also posted in that regard on 01.02.1962. It further appears that one another entry No. 3263 came to be recorded on 01.09.1970 in respect of the said account No. 383, wherein it was stated that since Shri Hariprakashanand Tirthji was not keeping good health, the names of his two disciples i.e. Swami Parmanandji and Swami Kalikanandji were entered as the occupants. It further appears that vide the entry No. 3548 dated 10.08.1976, the name of Swami Kalikanandji was removed and the name of another disciple Krushnanand @ Mohananandji was entered along with Swami Parmanandji and Shri Hariprakashananad Tirthji. 3. On 01.08.1976, the Mamlatdar and ALT issued a notice to Hariprakashanand Tirthji calling upon him to show cause as to why the form under Section 10 of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not filled in by him and as to why the penalty as contemplated under Section 11 should not be imposed upon him. In response to the said notice, one Baldevbhai Ambaram Patel as the Power of Attorney holder of the Khatedar Hariprakashnand Tirthji appeared before the Mamlatdar in the said inquiry proceedings. The Mamlatdar and ALT thereafter passed the order on 22.07.1982 in Ceiling Case No. 33 of 1976 directing the said Khatedar Hariprakashnand Tirthji to file his return in form No. 2 within one month from the date of the order. The Mamlatdar and ALT thereafter passed the order on 22.07.1982 in Ceiling Case No. 33 of 1976 directing the said Khatedar Hariprakashnand Tirthji to file his return in form No. 2 within one month from the date of the order. Thereafter the said Baldevbhai Ambaram Patel filled up the Form No. 2 along with the affidavit on 06.07.1983 showing Shri Hariprakashnand Tirthji and Krushnanandji as the holders of the land admeasuring 50 acres 8 gunthas of village Sanathal. 4. It appears that thereafter the Mamlatdar held the inquiry in respect of the said Form, and passed the order dated 03.04.1984 declaring 11 acres 8 gunthas of land as the surplus land. Being aggrieved by the said order, the said Hariprakashnand Tirthji and Krushnanandji had filed an appeal being the Ceiling Appeal No. 39 of 1986 before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Appeals Ahmedabad. The said appeal having been rejected vide the order dated 21.08.1984, the said two appellants had filed the Revision Application being No. TEN B.A. No. 1410 of 1984 before the GRT. The GRT vide the order dated 20.04.1988 partly allowed the said Revision Application, by remanding the matter to the Mamlatdar and ALT, Sanand for deciding it afresh in light of the observations made in the said order (Annexure 'D'). 5. After the remand of the case, the Mamlatdar and ALT again held that the said Shri Hariprakashanand Tirthji, was holding 11 acres 8 gunthas of the land as the suprlus land, vide the order dated 31.12.1988 (Annexure 'B'). Being aggrieved by the said order, Swami Parmanandji preferred an appeal being Ceiling Appeal No. 23 of 1989 before the Deputy Collector, who vide the order dated 23.10.1989 dismissed the said appeal (Annexure 'C'). The aggrieved applicant Swami Parmanandji filed the Revision Application being TEN B.A. No. 877 of 1989 before the GRT, who vide the impugned order dated 18.11.1992 allowed the said Revision Application and held that none of the three persons i.e. Swami Parmanandji, Hariprakashnand Tirthji and Krushnanand, held any excess vacant land. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State has preferred the present appeal. 6. It is sought to be submitted by the learned AGP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the State that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has misappreciated the evidence on record and misinterpreted the provisions contained in the said Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State has preferred the present appeal. 6. It is sought to be submitted by the learned AGP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the State that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has misappreciated the evidence on record and misinterpreted the provisions contained in the said Act. According to her, Shri Hariprakashnand Tirthji was the holder of the land in question on the appointed day i.e. 01.09.1961 and he could not have transferred the said land in favour of his two disciples by permitting to enter their names as the occupants in the revenue record. She also relied upon the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act to submit that any transfer in any manner after the commencement of the Act, was prohibited and Shri Hariprakashanandji having transferred the land in contravention of Section 7, the entire land was required to be considered for the purpose of computation of surplus land under Section 15 of the said Act. She further submitted that the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector had rightly appreciated the evidence on record to hold that the said Hariprakashanand Tirthji was holding 11 acres gunthas as surplus land, as the land was not granted any exemption under the Act. 7. However, the learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah for Mr. B.C. Dave for the respondents vehemently submitted that the petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches as the same was filed after about six years of passing of the impugned order. In this regard, he has relied upon various decisions of this Court and of Supreme Court to submit that there could not be separate parameters in the matter of condonation of delay when the Government is the petitioner as the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government. Pressing into service the provisions contained in Section 8 of the said Act, he submitted that the names of two disciples having been entered before 24.01.1971, no presumption could be drawn against the holder that the said names were entered with a view to defeat the object of the Act. According to him, there was no violation of Section 7 also as Shri Hariprakashanandji was not holding any land in excess of ceiling limit on the appointed day i.e. 01.09.1961 and therefore Section 7 was not applicable to the land in question. Mr. According to him, there was no violation of Section 7 also as Shri Hariprakashanandji was not holding any land in excess of ceiling limit on the appointed day i.e. 01.09.1961 and therefore Section 7 was not applicable to the land in question. Mr. Dave also relied upon the definition clause, more particularly, as contained in Section 2(20) of the said Act to submit that “the owner in relation to land would include the person holding the land as occupant also” and that in the instant case, those two persons namely Swami Parmanandji and Mohananandji having been shown as the occupants as per the entry No. 3263 dated 01.09.1970, they were required to be treated as the owners and separate individuals for the purpose of Section 6 of the said Act. He has also submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the concerned respondents had got the trust registered as Lambenarayan Cheritable Trust and accordingly the cause title was also amended with the permission of the Court as per the order dated 12.10.2010 in Civil Application No. 12199 of 2010. 8. During the course of the dictation of the order, the learned advocates for the parties made their further submissions with the permission of the Court. Mr. Manish Shah, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the amended Act of 72 came into force with effect from 01.04.1976, whereby the ceiling limit was reduced from 80 acres to 39 acres for the dry crop land in respect of the category 'D' of the Schedule-I of the Act. According to him, since the names of two persons i.e. Swami Permanandji and Swami Kalikanandji were entered into revenue record as the occupants as per the entry No. 3263 dated 01.09.1970 along with the name of Shri Hariprakashanand Tirthji, each of the occupants was entitled to the separate unit and to hold 39 acres each. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Others versus State of Gujarat reported in 2008 (1) G.L.H. 749. However, the learned AGP Ms. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Others versus State of Gujarat reported in 2008 (1) G.L.H. 749. However, the learned AGP Ms. Bhatt vehemently submitted that no such contention about the said two disciples i.e. Permanandji and Kalikanand being the occupants, was taken by the respondents in any of the proceedings before the authorities, and therefore, the respondents should not be permitted to raise such contention in the present petition. 9. Before dealing with the rival contentions raised by the learned advocates for the parties, it would be beneficial to refer to some of the provisions of the said Act. Section 6 restricts the rights of the owner or tenant to hold the land in excess of Ceiling Act. The relevant part of Section 6(1) reads as under : - “6. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any agreement, usage or decree or order of a Court, with effect, from the appointed day no person shall, subject to the provisions of [sub-sections (2), (3), (3A) and (3B)] be entitled to hold whether as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant land in excess of the ceiling area.” 10. The definitions of “owner” and “person” as contained in Section 2(20) and 2(21) respectively, read as under : - “2. (20) “owner” in relation to land includes a person holding the land as occupant, or land-holder as defined in the Code or as lessee of Government and a person holding land for his maintenance.” 2. (21) “person” includes a joint family”. 11. At this juncture, the definition of “occupant” as contained in the Land Revenue Code would be also relevant. Section 3(16) of the Code defines “occupant” as under : - “3. (16) “occupant” -“occupant” means a holder in actual possession of unalieanated land, other than a tenant: provided that where the holder in actual possession is tenant, the landlord or superior landlord, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the occupant.” 12. Section 7 of the said Act restricts the transfer or subdivision of the land and prescribes the consequence of transfer or subdivision made after the appointed day. Section 7 of the said Act restricts the transfer or subdivision of the land and prescribes the consequence of transfer or subdivision made after the appointed day. Section 8 states about the consequences of the transfer or the partition made after 15.01.1959 but before the commencement of the Act i.e. 01.09.1961, or after 24.01.1971 but before the specified day i.e. 17.04.1976. Section 10 obliges every person holding land in excess of ceiling limit to furnish the particulars of the land to the Mamlatdar. Section 15 pertains to the computation of surplus land. 13. In light of the afore stated provisions of the Act, if the facts of the present case are appreciated, then it appears that as stated herein above, the land originally belonged to one Shri Lambenarayan Pavitranandji, who expired in the year 1961, and thereafter Swami Hariprakashanandji had become the owner and occupier of the land in question by virtue of the Will executed by Shri Lambenarayanji. Since the said Hariprakashanandji was not keeping good health, he had got the names of his two disciples entered in the revenue record as per the entry No. 3263, which came to be recorded on 01.09.1970 and accordingly the names of Swami Permanandji and Kalikanandji were entered as the occupants. In this regard, it was sought to be submitted by the learned AGP that the transfer of land being prohibited under Section 7, Shri Hariprakashanandji could not have caused such entry to be made, which tantamounted to transfer of land. However, the said submission cannot be accepted. At the relevant time, the holding capacity provided under the old Act, was 80 acres for the 'D' category dry crop land, and therefore Section 7 (1) did not apply to the person who did not hold land in excess of the ceiling unit as per Section (4) of the said Act. It was only by virtue of the amendment in the Act in 1976, the ceiling limit was reduced from 80 acres to 39 acres. 14. It is pertinent to note that when the amended Act came into force on 01.04.1976, the names of Permanandji, Kalikanandji along with Hariprakashanandji were recorded in the revenue record as the “occupants” of the land in question. The said two disciples along with Hariprakashanandji therefore, were required to be treated as the owners as per the definition Clause (20) of Section 2 of the said Act. The said two disciples along with Hariprakashanandji therefore, were required to be treated as the owners as per the definition Clause (20) of Section 2 of the said Act. As per Section 6, no person whether as the owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant could hold land in excess of ceiling area. The said three persons who were holding the land as the occupants therefore would be the owners also, and therefore each one was entitled to hold the land upto 39 acres. 15. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramanlal Bhailal Patel (supra), considering the earlier judgment in the case of Hasmukhlal Dahayabhai versus State of Gujarat reported in 1976 (4) SCC 100 , and considering the definition of 'person' as contained in the General Clauses Act, in the light of the inclusive definition of 'person' as contained in Section 2(21) of the said Act, held as under in Para 17 : “17. Both definitions of the word 'person', in General Clauses Act and Ceiling Act, are definitions. The inclusive definition of 'person' in General Clauses Act applies to all Gujarat Act unless there is anything repugant in the subject or the context. The inclusive definition of 'person' in Section 2(21) of the Ceiling Act, does not indiate anything to the definition of 'person' in General Clauses Act, but merely adds 'joint family' to the existing definition. Therefore the definition of person in the Ceiling Act, would include the definition of person in Section 3(3) of General Clauses Act. The resultant position can be stated thus : The definition of person in General Clauses Act, being an inclusive definition, would include the ordinary, popular and general meaning and those specifically included in the definition. The inclusive definition of 'person' in the Ceiling Act, the absence of any exclusion, would have the same meaning assigned to the word in the General Clauses Act, and in addition, a 'joint family' as defined. The inclusive definition of 'person' in the Ceiling Act, the absence of any exclusion, would have the same meaning assigned to the word in the General Clauses Act, and in addition, a 'joint family' as defined. Thus, the word 'person' in the Ceiling Act will, unless the context otherwise requires, refer to : (i) a natural human being, (ii) any legal entity which is capable of possessing rights and duties, including any company or association of persons body of individuals (whether incorporated or not); and (iii) Hindu Undivided Family or any other group or unit of persons, the members of which by custom or usage, are joint in estate and residence.” 16. In view of the aforestated legal position, there remains no shadow of doubt that the said three persons i.e. Hariprakashanandji, Permanandji and Kalikanandji were the “occupants” of the land in question, and each was entitled to separate unit and hold land upto 39 acres. The Court therefore is of the opinion that the very initiation of the proceedings by the Mamlatdar by issuing the show-cause notice to the deceased Hariprakashanadji on 01.08.1976 was misconceived. The Tribunal had rightly held that the none of the three persons i.e. Hariprakashanandji, Permanandji and Krushnanandji was holding any land in excess of the ceiling limit. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal being in consonance with the provisions contained in the said Act, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order. 17. In that view of the matter, the present petition being devoid of the merits, is dismissed. Rule is discharged.