( 1 ) MAJMUDAR J. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Deputy Collector Navsari directing summary eviction of the petitioner from the land in question under sec. 9 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the said Act and as confirmed by the Deputy Secretary Revenue (Appeals) in revision under sec. 35 of the said Act.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner a few relevant facts may be noticed at the outset. The petitioner is the owner of the land and super-structure situated on block No. 7 in village Samroli of Chikhli taluka of Valsad district. The petitioner had purchased by a registered sale deed land admeasuring 0 acre-3 gunthas and 36 sq. ft. for Rs. 1 851 on 2-1-1967 from respondent No. 3 who was the owner of the said land. The purchased land formed part of block No. 7 which totally admeasured 0 acre-9 gunthas. It appears that the said block was subjected to the provisions of the consolidation scheme made applicable to the village in question. As the petitioner purchased part of this land from opponent No. 3 without obtaining previous permission of the Collector under sec. 37 of the said Act proceedings were initiated against him and opponent No. 3 under sec. 9 of the said Act. The said proceedings appeared to have been initiated after lapse of 7 years i. e. somewhere in the year 1974. Now in the meantime the petitioner who had purchased the said land which was a house site for the purpose of putting up residential house spent substantial amount of Rs. 25 0 and put up a house having facilities of latrine kitchen and store room. In response to the notice issued by the Deputy Collector under sec. 9 of the said Act the petitioner and opponent No. 3 the vendee and vendor-appeared and submitted that possession may be regularised and that the petitioner should not be disturbed and that opponent No. 3 had no objection in getting the transaction regularised. However the Deputy collector took the view that the transaction was violative of sec. 9 and hence the petitioner was liable to be summarily evicted. The petitioners contention that after purchase of the house he had put up construction at substantial cost of Rs. 25 0 and hence he should not be summarily evicted was rejected by the Deputy Collector. The sale in his favour was declared to be null and void. Under sec. 9 (2) of the Act. opponent No. 3 was fined Rs. 250. 00 and under sec. 9 (3) the petitioner was ordered to be summaily evicted. That order of the Deputy Collector passed on 21 resulted into a revision under sec. 35 of the Act by the petitioner before the Special Secretary (appeals ). The Deputy Secretary revenue department heard the revision application and dismissed the same. The revisional authority refused to accept the contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that lot of time-ten years-had elapsed between the date of the transaction and the date of the impugned order of the Deputy Collector and in the meantime the petitioner had changed his position and on account of such gross delay powers of summary eviction may not be exercised against him. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present proceedings in this court.

( 3 ) MR. Sanjanwala learned advocate for the petitioner amongst others submitted that after lapse of almost ten years the Deputy Collector had set aside the transaction in favour of the petitioner and had ordered summary eviction. That such order passed after gross delay was unjustified and that the said submission was wrongly rejected even by the revisional authority.

( 4 ) NOW it is obvious that the authorities under the Act have been enjoined to pass proper orders under sec. 9 for declaring the transactions contrary to the said Act to be null and void and also to pass consequential orders of fine as well as summary eviction. But th