( 1 ) THE petitioner purchased agricultural land bearing Block No. 23 situated at village Tajpura, Taluka Halol, Dist, Panchmahals admeasuring 2 acres and 12 gunthas under the registered sale deed from the present respondent Nos. 4 to 8-original owner of the land by a sale deed dated 27. 6. 1980 (Annexure-A ). Thereafter, he applied for mutation in the revenue record in respect of the said land. Mutation entry was certified on 5. 4. 1981 by Talati-cum-Mantri (Annexure-B) with shero that neither there was a note regarding new tenure land nor patta issued to the said land. Thus, since June, 1980 the petitioner was in possession of the said agricultural land and continued to develop and nourish the same for years together. However, after a period of almost 12 years, the petitioner was served with two show cause notices dated 28. 1. 1992 and 30. 7. 1992 by the Assistant Collector, Godhra, Prant Godhra calling upon him to show cause as to why the said land should not be forfeited to the Government because it was a new tenure land. Notices were issued to the original owners as well. They have appeared before the Assistant Collector in response to the notices and stated that they had already sold the land before 10 to 11 years to the petitioner and since then he was in possession of the land in question. They have also stated that before selling the land to the petitioner they had not obtained any prior permission from the competent authority. However, they have denied that it was a new tenure land and there was no such proof regarding the same. It was their ancestors property and Samatsinh had sold the land of his share to the petitioner.

( 2 ) AFTER hearing the parties, the Assistant Collector had observed in his impugned order dated 28. 9. 92 (Annexure-C) that the purchaser and seller both have admitted about the said transaction without prior permission of the competent authority and that they have not produced any evidence to the effect that the said land was not a new tenure land. They had not filed even objections at the time of promulgation of the record. Hence, till it is proved that it was not a new tenure land, the presumption has to be raised that it is a new tenure land because Amalgamation Scheme coming into force and Entry No. 73 was already made on 11. 11. 1957, which shows that it was a new tenure land, therefore, before selling the land, permission was necessary. Accordingly, he ordered the land to be forfeited to the Government.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order dated 28. 9. 1992 (Annexure-C) passed by the Assistant Collector, the petitioner had approached the Collector by way of Revision Application No. 18/92 raising almost same contentions, which were raised before the Assistant Collector in respect of his case. However, the Collector, Panchmahals at Godhra by his order dated 31. 3. 1993 (Annexure-D) dismissed the said revision application by confirming the order passed by the Assistant Collector.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid orders at Annexures "c" and "d" passed by the Assistant Collector and Collector respectively were challenged by the petitioner before the State Government by way of Revision Application, but the same was also dismissed on 13. 12. 1993 (Annexure-E ). Hence, this petition.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. Shastri for the petitioner submitted that all the three authorities below committed serious error in proceeding on the assumption that it is a new tenure land. He submitted that the Department should have come with clear case that it was a new tenure land, but in the instant case, all the three authorities wrongly threw the burden on the petitioner to prove that it was of a new tenure land. Thus, the entire approach of the authorities was wrong and illegal. He submitted that he had purchased the land way back in June, 1980 i. e. more than 24 years from today under bona fide impression that it was not a new tenure land and having purchased it under the registered sale deed in June, 1980,