( 1 ) M. P. THAKKAR J. The question regarding the import and true meaning of the expression a contiguous survey number occurring in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 7 of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Hold- ings Act 1947 (Bombay Act No. LXII of 1947) (hereafter referred to as the Act) has surfaced in this petition by an agriculturist who purchased land comprised in a survey number which was so situated that it was adjoining to his own land except and save for the fact that a narrow approach road separated the two boundaries.

( 2 ) IN village Gandevi there was an agricultural field admeasuring 12 Bighas and 4 Vasas comprised in Survey No. 259. In the year 1913 5 Bighas and 3 Vasas of survey No. 259 were placed under acquisition for a public purpose viz. Bilimora-Sara road. Some time later 13 Vasas of land were placed under acquisition for a public purpose Viz. for construc- tion of an approach road from Gandevi Kasba to Gandevi Station. The result of the latter acquisition was that the land came to be divided into two parts separated by the approach road which was constructed in pur- suance to the acquisition proceedings. The portion falling towards the west of the approach road was re-numbered as Survey No. 394. The portion towards the east of the approach road retained its original survey number viz. Survey No. 259. The petitioner was a tenant in respect of the western portion of original survey No. 259 which was subsequently re-numbered as Survey No. 394 and under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 became a statutory owner by deemed purchase of the said land. Some 20 years later on April 20 1972 he purchased the eastern portion of original Survey No. 259 which portion continued to retain its old number Viz. S. No. 259. It appears that meanwhile the aforesaid eastern portion comprised in Survey No. 259 came to be entered as a fragment under sec. 6 of the Act In view of this circumstance Survey No. 259 which was entered as a fragment could not been sold to any one except to the owner of the contiguous survey number having regard to the provision embodied in sec 7 of the Act which is in the following terms :7 (1) No person shall transfer any fragment in respect of which a notice has been given under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 except to the owner of a contiguous survey number or recognised sub-division of a survey number:

( 3 ) ON October 1 1973 the Deputy Collector of Navsari issued a show cause notice and called upon the petitioner to explain why the transaction of purchase made by him on April 12 1972 in respect of Survey No. 259 should not be invalidated on the ground that it was in contravention of sec. 7 of the Act. On February 28 1974 the Deputy Collector Navsari passed order Annexure A declaring that the transaction under which the petitioner had purchased the land was in contravention of sec. 7 of the Act and declared under sec. 9 of the Act that the transaction was void and levied a penalty of Rs. 100. 00. He also directed that the petitioner should be evicted from the land. The petitioner approached the State of Gujarat by way of a revisional application which was numbered as SS. R. D. CON. 51/74. The revisional application was heard by the Deputy Secretary of the Revenue Department who by his impugned order annexure B dated February 6 1975 confirmed the view taken by the Deputy Collector and rejected the revision. Thereupon the petitioner has invoked the powers of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order (Annexure A) passed by the Deputy Collector as confirmed by Annexure B passed by the State Government

( 4 ) NOW. the preamble of the Act shows that the Act has been enacted in order to prevent fragmentation of agricultural holdings and as it was considered expedient to provide for the consolidation of agricultural hold- ings for the purpose of the better cultivation thereof. The i