The Government cannot set aside or cancel an agreement entered into between the Government and a subject under S.211 of the Land Revenue Code.

CHAGLA, C.J. :- The petitioner was given survey Nos.167 and 168 which were formerly unoccupied Government waste lands for cultivation as a tenant from the year 1943 on an annual tenancy. He then applied for a sanad as an occupant. Rule 3J, Bombay Land Revenue Code Rules provide that any unoccupied survey number not assigned for any special purpose, may, at the Collectors discretion, be granted for agricultural purposes to such, person as the Collector deems fit, either upon payment of a price fixed by the Collector, or without charge, or may be put up to public auction and sold subject to his confirmation to the highest bidder, and sub-cl.(4) provides that when the land is granted on impartible tenure, an agreement in Form F(1), and, when it is also granted on inalienable tenure, an agreement in Form F(1), shall ordinarily be taken from the person intending to become the occupant. In this case the land was granted on impartible tenure to the petitioner and an agreement in Form F(1) was signed by the petitioner and this agreement was accepted on behalf of the Government by the District Deputy Collector. Therefore, there was a complete and concluded contract between the Government and the petitioner which made the petitioner an occupant within the meaning of the Land Revenue Code, and the rights of the occupant are governed by S.68 of the Land Revenue Code, Section 68 provides that "an occupant is entitled to the use and occupation of his land for the period, if any, to which his tenure is limited, or if the period is unlimited, or a survey settlement has been extended to the land, in perpetuity conditionally on the payment of the amounts due on account of the land revenue for the same, according to the provisions of this Act, or of any rules made under this Act, or of any other law, for the time being in force, and on the fulfilment of any other terms or conditions lawfully annexed to his tenure." It is not disputed by the State that the petitioner has paid land revenue as required by the terms of the sanad and that he has carried out the terms of the sanad.

2. Now, it appears that one Govindrao Pataloji Thite applied to the Mamlatdar that the lease of these lands should be given to him instead of the petitioner. Having heard of this the petitioner wrote a letter on 18-11-1951, to the Revenue Secretary, Revenue Department, stating that he had been given the sanad and no action should be taken without deciding the merits as to the application of Thite after a full and impartial inquiry. Somehow the Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Revenue Department, looked upon this letter as an application for a grant of a lease and the petitioner was informed on 19-1-1952, that his request for the grant of survey Nos.167 and 168 could not be granted as he was already in possession of land sufficient for the maintenance of his family, and on 15-2-1952, the Mamlatdar issued a notice upon the petitioner to hand over to him possession of these survey NoS.167 and 168, and it is this order which is being challenged by the petitioner, and the contention of the petitioner is that he is being deprived of his property otherwise than by due process of law.

3. Now, in their affidavits the case made out by the State of Bombay is that the petitioner obtained the sanad on false representations and the false representations were, first, that he had spent a sum of Rs.15,000 in making improvements upon the lands and according to the State of Bombay it was found that this was a gross overstatement. The second misrepresentation on which the State relies is that it was represented to the Government that the petitioner did not own any large area of agricultural land whereas in fact according to the State he owned 63 acres of agricultural land and he also cultivated 70 acres of land as a tenant of some other landlord, and the case of the State of Bombay is that this agreement would never have been entered into but for the misrepresentations made by the