( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. B. J. Jadeja on behalf of the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. A. D. Oza appearing on behalf of the respondents. SINCE common question of facts and law involved in this group of ten petitions, all these petitions heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Jadeja appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the respondent authorities have granted N. A. Permission respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioners for establishing quarry and thereafter land revenue for N. A. use was to be recovered at the rate of Rs. 0. 06 ps. per sq. mtr. as stated in the order which is at Annexure-A to the petition. Thereafter, the Government of Gujarat by making amendment in Rule-81 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 has enhanced rates of the land revenue as per the Notification dated 8/04/1992 as per the table given on page-3 of the petition. Thereafter, the State of Gujarat after issuing notification has issued Circular dated 1 5/05/1992 directing the District Development Officer and the Collectors to initiate proceedings for recovering the land revenue at enhanced rate immediately. It was also directed to the concerned authority that arrears are to be recovered with effect from 1st August, 1989. Thereafter, the Taluka Development Officer has issued notice demanding land revenue at enhanced rate with effect from 1989-90 from the petitioners. It is case of the petitioners that various representations have been made by the petitioners to the various Revenue Authorities but the same have not been considered and proceeded further as per the notice of attachment of the property and sale by public auction.

( 3 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Jadeja has submitted that such demand notice at the enhanced rate in pursuance of the Government Notification dated 8/04/1992 and Circular dated 15/05/1992 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. He also submitted that in representations, many disputed questions of facts have been raised by the petitioner contending that whether the enhanced rate will be applicable in respect of the petitioners or not. It is also contended that it depends on various factors as per the Notification and Circular issued by the Government and the provisions of Rule 81 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules. Learned advocate Mr. Jadeja has also submitted that enhanced rate demanded by the respondents from the petitioners is not according to the Rules. He also submitted that there is some difference of opinion between the authorities and the petitioners whether the Industries set up by the petitioners can be said to be village industry or commercial industry. Learned advocate Mr. Jadeja has submitted that demand of such enhanced rate with retrospective effect is also contrary to the Rules. He also submitted that before demanding the enhanced rate as per the Notification and Circular from the petitioners by the respondent authorities without giving of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is also contrary to the principles of natural justice. Learned advocate Mr. Jadeja has also submitted that the action of the respondent authorities is in violation of Articles 14, 19[1][g] and 265 of the Constitution of India. Learned advocate Mr. Jadeja has also submitted that the adjacent other lands have not been taken into account for giving the demand notice on enhanced rates and therefore this action of demanding enhanced rate from the petitioner is discriminatory. He also submitted that as per the agreement with the petitioners by the authorities to the effect that rate so fixed, cannot be revised for coming 30 years and therefore also, before revision of such rate or enhancement of the rates is also contrary to the agreement arrived at between the petitioners and the authorities. Furthermore, some other contentions have been raised in the present petition by the petitioners.

( 4 ) LEARNED advoc