( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who purchased a fragment of agricultural land from respondents Nos. 1 to 4 on 15-5-1971 has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector Baroda under Sec. 9 (1) and Sec. 9 (3) of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 as confirmed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Gujarat (Revenue Department) in revision.

( 2 ) IT appears from the impugned orders that the land admeasuring 1 Acre and 33 gunthas of Survey No. 1067 situated in the outskirts of Karjan in Baroda District was sold for Rs. 7 0 to the petitioner Jiviben Motibhai on 15-5-1971 by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4. When the corresponding entry was made in the revenue record it was not confirmed and proceeding was taken up under the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). After issuing the necessary notices to the parties the Deputy Collector Baroda passed an order Annexure A dated 13-3-1979 declaring that the sale of Survey No. 1067 in favour of the petitioner was void and imposed a fine of Rs. 250. 00 on the transferor under Sec. 5 (2) of the Act. A further order was passed for summary eviction of the transferee and restoration of the land to the transferor.

( 3 ) THE petitioner Jiviben approached the Government in revision under Sec. 35 of the Act. The revisional authority also confirmed the aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector by concurring with him so far as the findings of facts were concerned.

( 4 ) IT is those orders which are being challenged by the petitioner under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) MR. R. M. Vin learned Counsel for the petitioner has made the submission that the orders of both the authorities were erroneous inview of the following facts: (I) Survey No. 1067 which was sold to the petitioner was not agricultural land; (ii) The said land was situated in the limits of Karjan Municipality and therefore exempted from the rigorous provisions of the Act; (iii) There is no proof that the standard area was determined by following the procedure prescribed under Secs. 4 and 5 of the Act. (iv) The Deputy Collector did not record the evidence as per the requirement of the Bombay Land Revenue Code; (v) The evidence of Talati was incompletely recorded; (vi) No express show cause notice was issued regarding the order to be passed under Sec. 9 (3) of the Act; (vii) The land was wrongly shown to be a fragment in the revenue record; (viii) The plot which was sold is of irregular shape and so exemption should have been granted.

( 6 ) SO far as the above contentions at Sr. Nos. 1 to 7 are concerned both the authorities namely the Deputy Collector and the Joint Secretary have rendered concurrent findings of facts which cannot be disturbed. So far as the contention No. 8 is concerned it was never submitted for consideration of the Deputy Collector or the Joint Secretary. It does nut find its place in the petition also. Hence the above contentions are referred to in order only to be rejected.

( 7 ) MR. Vin however submitted that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 9 of the Act gives discretion to the Collector either to pass an order of eviction or not to pass such an order in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 9 reads as under; (3) Any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land the transfer or partition of which either by the act of parties or by the operation of law is void under the provisions of this Act may be summarily evicted by the Collector. This point is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Govindsingh Ramsinghbhai Vaghela v. G. Subbarao Asstt. Collector Dholka and Ors. 1970 GLR 897 to which my attention has been drawn by Mr. P. C. Master learned Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Referring to the word used in Sec. 9 sub-sec. (3) the Division Bench ob