( 1 ) AS both the petitions are interconnected and the orders under challenge is common, they are being considered by this Court by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present petitions are that there were inter se disputes on the revenue entries and for which, the respective litigations are pending, which are not much relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petitions. It appears that the only question, which may arise for consideration in the present petitions are whether the Collector while exercising the power under the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code )in the entry proceedings could pass the order for resumption of the land under sec. 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ? (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 3 ) I have heard the learned Advocate Mr. A. J. Patel for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 10262 of 1996 and Mr. S. B. Vakil with Ms. Acharya for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 247 of 1997 and mr. Chhaya, learned A. G. P. appearing for the State Authorities. It may be stated that the learned Counsel for the petitioners who are joined as the respondents have appeared for their respective clients. However, the contention remains the same.

( 4 ) AS such, it is not in dispute that in the proceedings of Revision Application no. 65 of 1994 were not under Sec. 108 (6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ), in which the District Collector had passed the impugned order dated 22-10-1996, whereby while disposing the revision application, the order is also passed for resumption of the land by the Government under the Act.

( 5 ) THE perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Collector shows that the revision was preferred in connection with various R. T. S. entries, and therefore, while deciding the legality and validity of the R. T. S. entries, it was required for the District Collector to examine the aspects as to whether the entry could be mutated in the revenue record, and at that stage, even it has come on record that the land was not cultivated for some time, he could not exercise the power under a different enactment, that too without initiating the action under the different enactment and without giving opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. The reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Evergreen Apartment Co-op. Housing Society v. Special Secretary, revenue Department, reported at 1991 (1) GLR 113. It may also be recorded that thereafter, the said decision in the case of Evergreen Apartment (supra) was further considered by this Court in the case of Jayantilal Jethalal Soni v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , reported at 2005 (4) GLR 3354 and it was observed by this Court that while exercising the power under the Land Revenue Code, in the matter of revenue entry, even if the authority finds that there is breach of the other enactment, at the most, while certifying the entry, there may be the prima facie observations and clarifications that the transaction is in breach of the said enactment and the entry shall continue, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings under the other enactment. However, the revenue authority while exercising the power under the Code, could not conclude the aspects of breach of other enactment.

( 6 ) IF the facts of the present case are examined, it appears that the Collector, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, has not properly recorded the reasons for maintaining the entry or for cancellation of the entry which were subject-matter of the revision before him and by stating the facts, he has mainly concentrated upon the breach of non-cultivation over the land, consequently resulting into the breach of the provisions of Sec. 65 of the Act and the resumption of the land by the Government. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners are right in submitting that while exercising the rev