( 1 ) RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Siraj gori waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner seeks permission to take on record the order dated 7th March, 2006 passed by the Collector, Vadodara, during the pendency of the petition. The same is taken on the record of the case. The petitioner is challenging this order also.

( 2 ) THIS petition has been preferred mainly because of the order dated 21st november, 2005 passed by the Collector, Vadodara (Annexure "h" to the memo of the petition), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner to grant n. A. permission under Sec. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code, 1879) has been rejected.

( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 21st November, 2005 rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and subsequent orders during the course of hearing by the petition), are de hors the facts and law especially Sec. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and read with the provision of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of holding Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1947 ).

( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner submitted that initially the land in question was restricted tenure land, and therefore, an application was preferred under Sec. 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1948), where upon the order dated 18th january, 2005 (Annexure "b" to the memo of petition) has been passed by collector, Vadodara, whereby the restricted tenure land was made transferable. Thus, new tenure land was converted into old tenure land. Necessary amount of premium fixed by the Collector, Vadodara under Sec. 43 of the Act, 1948 has also been paid. Subsequently, an application was preferred under Sec. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 for getting N. A. permission and the impugned order has been passed by the Collector, Vadodara presuming that there is a breach of provisions of the Act, 1947. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that when application is preferred under the provisions of Sec. 65 of the Code, 1879, Collector cannot assume and exercise powers conferred under another Act, 1947. No notice has ever been issued stating that the sale transaction has been entered into is violative of the provisions of the Act, 1947. No opportunity of being heard has been given for the alleged breach of the Act, 1947, and therefore, the communication issued by the Collector, Vadodara dated 21st November, 2005 (Annexure "h" to the memo of the petition) as well as the order dated 7th March, 2006 passed by the Collector, Vadodara deserves to be quashed and set aside.

( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Evergreen Apartment Co-operative Housing society Ltd. v. Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, reported in 1991 (1) GLR 113 : 1991 (1) GLH 155 and pointed out that the powers has been exercised by the Collector, Vadodara under the Bombay Land Revenue code, 1879 and it is not permissible as per the aforesaid judgment, and therefore also, the impugned order (Annexure "h" to the memo of petition) as well as order dated 7th March, 2006 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

( 6 ) I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Siraj Gori on behalf of the respondents, who has submitted that the order passed by the collector, Vadodara is true, correct and in consonance with the facts of the case. The petitioner has purchased a fragment of land, which is not permissible under the Act, 1947, and therefore, in view of the provisions of Sec. 9 of the Act, 1947, the said provisions shall be deemed to be void, and therefore, n. A. permission has not been granted under Sec. 65 of the Code, 1879.

( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned