( 1 ) THE petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the order dated 2. 7. 1999 passed by the district Collector and its confirmation thereof by the state Government as per the order dated 2. 7. 2004, whereby the land allotted to the original grantee is ordered to be forfeited.

( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Desai firstly raised the contention that there is no material produced on record to show that it is a new tenure land and he further submitted that if there is no material produced to show that the land allotted was a new tenure land, the Authority could not have proceeded on the basis that it is a new tenure land. In support he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of "kalumiya Dalumiya vs. State of Gujarat", reported in 2001 (1) GLH (U. J.), 5. In my view, the said contention is ill-founded in as much as in the order dated 2. 7. 1996, whereby land was allotted to the original grantee, it has been expressly stated that the land has been allotted as new and undivided tenure (restricted tenure) and, therefore, the same itself is sufficient material to show that the land allotted was as a new tenure land. It is a