ORDER P.V. DIXIT, C.J. 1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners state that they were the Malguzars of the village Parna and before the abolition of proprietary rights in the village under the Madhya Pradesh Act No. 1 of 1951, a field bearing Khasra No. 247 having an area of 130.40 acres was held on sir rights; that the bunded areas of the field were used for raising double crops and the non-bunded areas were utilized for one crop; that there was no tank in the field and no rights of Nistar or of irrigation of the village community; and that on 22nd October 1959 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajnandgaon, informed the petitioners that their tank in Khasra No. 247 having an area of 1.75 acres had vested in the State under Section 251 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, as from 6th April, 1959. 2. The petitioners contend that the decision of the opponents vesting the land in question; which was never a tank is altogether illegal and was taken without giving them an opportunity of hearing. They pray that an appropriate writ be issued for quashing the decision about the vesting of the "tank" communicated by the order dated the 22nd October 1959 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajnandgaon. 3. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether before any conclusion is reached about the vesting of a tank under Section 251 of the Code it is necessary to give an opportunity to a party who disputes the vesting to have his say in the matter. Section 251 (1) of the Code is as follows- "All tanks, not already vested in the State Government wherever situate, over which members of the village community were, immediately before the coming into force of the Act providing for the abolition of the rights of intermediaries in the area concerned, exercising rights of irrigation or Nistar, shall from the 6th April, 1959, vest absolutely in the State Government". Sub-section (2) of the Section lays down that any person claiming in any such tank any interest other than the right of irrigation or Nistar may, within the time specified therein, make an application in the prescribed form to the Collector for compensation in respect of his interest, sub-section (3) fixes the amount of compensation payable. Sub-section (2) of the Section lays down that any person claiming in any such tank any interest other than the right of irrigation or Nistar may, within the time specified therein, make an application in the prescribed form to the Collector for compensation in respect of his interest, sub-section (3) fixes the amount of compensation payable. The fourth sub-section provides that the compensation as determined under sub-section (3) shall be paid by the Collector to the person or persons proved to his satisfaction to be owning interest in the tank concerned. Sub-section (5) says that the payment of compensation under sub-section (4) shall be a full discharge of the State Government from all liability for compensation in respect of the tank concerned, but the payment shall not prejudice the rights in respect of the tank of any other person who may be entitled by due process of law to enforce against the person to whom compensation has been paid. The other sub-sections are not material. 4. It will be seen that under sub-section (1) there cannot be any vesting of a tank unless it is one which has not already vested in the State Government and is one over which the members of the village community were immediately before the coming into force of the Act providing for the abolition of the rights of intermediaries exercising rights of irrigation or Nistar. If these two conditions are satisfied, then the tank vests absolutely in the State Government as from 6th April 1959, that is to say from even before the coming into force of the Code. In the absence of any of these two conditions, there cannot be a legal vesting of a tank under Section 251 (1). The vesting takes place automatically when these conditions in respect of any tank are satisfied. No separate order to that effect is necessary. But that does not relieve the revenue authorities from satisfying themselves after an enquiry whether the conditions for vesting are satisfied in respect of any tank. It is true that Section 251 itself does not provide for any enquiry. But an enquiry into the question whether any land as a tank has vested in the Government under Section 251 is implicit in the provisions of Section 251. It is true that Section 251 itself does not provide for any enquiry. But an enquiry into the question whether any land as a tank has vested in the Government under Section 251 is implicit in the provisions of Section 251. This is clear from sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) about the determination and payment of compensation to the person owning an interest in the tank concerned. The Collector is empowered under sub-sections (3) and (4) to determine the amount of compensation and the persons entitled to receive it. The question of determination of compensation cannot arise unless it is first decided whether the "property" is a tank which has vested under Section 251 and is one in respect of which compensation is payable under that provision. If there is no vesting under Section 251 (1), then no question of payment of compensation can at all arise. 5. The view that an enquiry into the fulfilment of the conditions necessary for vesting under Section 251 (1) is necessary, is rainforced by Section 257 of the Code. This section excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by the Code empowered to determine, decide or dispose of. Clause (y) of Section 257 specifically excludes the jurisdiction of the civil Court in regard to "any decision regarding vesting of tanks in State Government under Section 251 and any claim against the State Government arising thereunder." The use of the expressions ''any decision" and "any claim" in clause (y) are highly significant. They point to the fact that here must be first a decision under Section 251 regarding the vesting of a tank, and make a distinction between a decision regarding vesting and a decision in regard to any claim including a claim for compensation arising under the decision regarding vesting. A decision regarding the vesting of a tank under Section 251 is, therefore, necessary. On the implications of subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 251 and on the principles of natural justice, such a decision cannot be arrived at without any enquiry and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned both as regards the vesting itself and as regards compensation. On the implications of subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 251 and on the principles of natural justice, such a decision cannot be arrived at without any enquiry and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned both as regards the vesting itself and as regards compensation. It cannot be denied that in exercising the powers under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 251 the Collector is required to act judicially and determine the questions affecting the rights of the parties having an interest in the property said to be vesting under Section 251. That being so, if no procedure has been prescribed by the Government under the general-rule making power conferred by Section 258 of the Code, the rules of natural justice must be followed and the persons concerned must be given an opportunity of hearing before any conclusion is arrived at about the vesting of a tank under Section 251. 6. The authority competent to hold an enquiry and to give a decision about vesting is clearly the Collector who has been empowered under Section 251 to determine the amount of compensation and adjudicate on the claims made under sub-section (2). 7. Shri Bhave, learned Government Advocate, however, relied on Section 57 of the Code for showing that the Collector is competent to decide a dispute about vesting under Section 251. In our opinion, that Section has no applicability here. Section 57 declares that all lands belong to the State and all lands including standing and flowing water, mines etc. are the property of the State Government. The proviso says that sub-section (1) of Section 57 shall not affect any rights of any person subsisting at the time of the coming into force of the Code in any such properly. The vesting of tanks under Section 251 is retrospective that is from 6th April 1959 and affects the rights of persons concerned in the tanks from a date anterior to the coming into force of the Code. The proviso to Section 57 (1), which saves rights subsisting on the date of the coming into force of the Code, and the substantive provision cannot, therefore, be taken as covering the vesting of tanks in the State. The proviso to Section 57 (1), which saves rights subsisting on the date of the coming into force of the Code, and the substantive provision cannot, therefore, be taken as covering the vesting of tanks in the State. Then again sub-section (3) of Section 57 gives to the person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under sub-section (2) the right to institute a civil suit for contesting the validity of the Collector's order. Section 257 (y), on the other hand, excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in regard to a matter falling under Section 251. 8. Here, admittedly, no enquiry was held regarding the vesting of 1-75 acres of khasra No. 247 belonging to the petitioners as tank under Section 251. It has been averred in the return that the communication sent to the petitioners on 22nd October 1959 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajnandgaon was only an intimation and not an order. That is no doubt so. But paragraph 1 of the return itself makes it abundently plain that the opponents have reached the conclusion that the land in question being a tank has vested in the State under Section 251. In the absence of any enquiry indicated earlier, that conclusion is clearly vitiated and cannot be upheld. If the opponents think that the portion of Khasra No. 247 specified in the intimation dated the 22nd October 1959 given to the petitioners by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajnandgaon, is a tank and has vested in the State, an enquiry must be held by the Collector into the question whether the portion is a tank satisfying the conditions laid down in Section 251 (1) before reaching any decision about the vesting of the portion as a tank in the State. As the communication dated the 22nd October 1959 sent by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajnandgaon, to the petitioners is only an intimation, it does not require to be quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time we hope that a proper decision as to the vesting of the property in question under Section 251 will be taken by the opponents in the light of this decision. 9. For these reasons, this petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. At the same time we hope that a proper decision as to the vesting of the property in question under Section 251 will be taken by the opponents in the light of this decision. 9. For these reasons, this petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioners. Petition dismissed