( 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