( 1 ) A short but interesting question which has come up for adjudication in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether a grantee should have an opportunity of hearing before the Authority who has to exercise the powers for regularisation and fixation of price and also payment of fees for unauthorised occupancy under the provisions of Section 61 read with Section 62 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 (the Code for short) read with Rule 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules 1972 (the Rules for short ).

( 2 ) ). The petitioner has been in possession of land admeasuring 1210 sq. yds. being part of Survey No. 145 of village Chikhli Taluka Savarkundla District Bhavnagar since the time of his forefathers and also since the erstwhile Bhavnagar State (the disputed land for short ). As per the contention of the petitioner the disputed land is wasteland and is unauthorisedly occupied by the petitioner He has made use of the land for residence and other purposes and he has also constructed a house on the part of the said land.

( 3 ) ). The petitioner has inter alia also contended that his forefathers had constructed a house and he has been making use of the remaining land for agricultural and ancillary purpose. The petitioner tried to get his name mutated in revenue record. The Circle Inspector of Savarkundla Taluka initiated proceedings under Section 61 of the Land Revenue Code Consequently Mamlatdar Savarkundla registered Encroachment Case No. 76 of 1978. Since the petitioner admitted the fact that he has been in possession of the Government wasteland in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar the Mamlatdar by his order dt. 12th January 1979 imposed fine exercising his powers under Section 61 of the Land Revenue Code Subsequently the petitioner made an application to the Collector Bhavnagar for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation by submitting application on 22nd January 1980 placing reliance upon a Government Resolution dt. 8 January 1980 which provides guidelines for regularisation of such cases of encroachment.

( 4 ) ). The concerned Mamlatdar after observing necessary formalities and examining the case of the petitioner made a recommandation to the Collector that the possession of the petitioner in respect of disputed land may be regularised in respect of land admeasuring 1210 sq. yds. As the power to regularise remains with the State Government the case was sent to the first respondent-State of Gujarat in Revenue Department.

( 5 ) ). After the decision was taken by the Government respondent No. 2-Collector Bhavnagar passed an order on 25-9-1981 whereby it is decided - (1) to regularise the possession of the petitioner only in respect of 622 sq. yds. of the disputed land which was used for residential purpose out of total unauthorised occupation of 1210 sq. yds (2) to put a condition of payment of penal price of two and half times calculated at Rs. 7-50 ps. per sq. yd. 6 Thus the Department decided following three things : (i) That the regularisation should be only in respect of 622 sq. yds. out of 1210 sq. yds. (ii) That the price of the land unauthorisedly occupied should be assessed at Rs. 7-50 ps. per sq. yd. (iii) That the penal price should be fixed at two and half times the price fixed at Rs. 7. 50 ps. per sq. yd. The petitioner was accordingly directed to pay Rs. 11 662 towards market price over and above educational cess local fund etc.

( 6 ) ). The petitioner challenged the order of respondent No. 2 Collector against fixation of the market price by filing revision under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code to the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department at Ahmedabad. The revision was refused to be entertained on the ground that the impugned order of respondent No. 2 came to be passed pursuant to the order passed by the State Government on 25th September 1981. In short it was held in the revision petition No. 740 of 1982 by the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department that the