( 1 ) THE petitioner has been in possession of survey No. 33 admeasuring Acre 1-33 Gunthas of village Utraj in Sinor Taluka of Baroda District. It was first granted to him on an Eksali lease by the Government for the year 1961-62. That lease was renewed from year to year until 1963-64. It was not renewed thereafter. The assessment of the land is Rs. 10-12 ps. After the expiry of the agricultural year 1963-64 the petitioner continued to be in unauthorised possession of that land. He wanted a permanent grant of that land to be made in his favour. He therefore made an application for that purpose to the Mamlatdar of Sinor. The Mamlatdar made his recommendation on that application and forwarded it to the Collector of Baroda. The Collector Baroda made an order on 25th July 1969 by which he granted the land to the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was required to pay to the Government the price of the land under sec. 62 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and penalty for unauthorised occupation of that land from 1964-65 onwards. The Collector fixed Rs. 4500. 00 as the price of the land and he demanded of the petitioner Rs. 11250. 00 being 21/2 times the price of the land for fine penalty. This is what he has stated in his order in that behalf. That 2 1/2 times the panchkyas price i. e. Rs. 4500. 00 will be liable and would come to Rs. 11 250 and that would be the amount which would be recoverable as fine for retaining the possession.

( 3 ) THE petitioner challenges in this petition not the order of grant but the fixation of the amount which he is called upon to pay. Since he failed to pay to the Collector Rs. 11250. 00 a notice of eviction has been issued to him. He therefore challenges in this petition that notice of eviction also.

( 4 ) MR. Patel who appears for the petitioner has contended before me that the amount of Rs. 11250. 00 fixed by the Collector is not in accordance with sec. 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rule 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules.

( 5 ) IN order to examine the contention which Mr. Patel has raised before me it is necessary to turn to sec. 61 and 62 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Sec. 62 provides as follows:it shall be lawful for the Collector subject to such rules as may from time to time be made by the State Government in this behalf to require the payment of a price for unalienated land or to sell the same by auction and to annex such conditions to the grant as he may deem fit before permission to occupy is given under sec. 60. THE price (if any) paid for such land shall include the price of the Government right to all trees not specially reserved under the provisions of sec. 40 and shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. The price of Rs. 4500. 00 which the Collector has fixed for the land in question has been fixed by him under sec. 62. This section renders it necessary for me to turn to rule 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 37 provides as follows: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. IT is not necessary for me to reproduce other sub-rules of Rule 37 because they are incidental in character and have no relevance for the purpose of this case. Reading sec. 62 with rule 37 it is quite clear that the Collector has authority to fix the price to be paid for the land which he grants to a person for agricultural purposes. Mr. Patel has argued before me that the price which the Collector has power to fix under sec. 62 read with rule 37 should be a just and fair price. It cannot be arbitrary or expropriatory. In the case of a public land which the Government sells to a person the price which is fixed must in my opinion be a just and fair price. In order t