S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been in possession of survey No. 33 admeasuring Acre 1-33 Gunthas of village Utraj in Sinor Taluka of Baroda District. It was first granted to him on an Eksali lease by the Government for the year 1961-62. That lease was renewed from year to year until 1963-64. It was not renewed thereafter. The assessment of the land is Rs. 10-12 ps. After the expiry of the agricultural year 1963-64 the petitioner continued to be in unauthorised possession of that land. He wanted a permanent grant of that land to be made in his favour. He therefore made an application for that purpose to the Mamlatdar of Sinor. The Mamlatdar made his recommendation on that application and forwarded it to the Collector of Baroda. The Collector Baroda made an order on 25th July 1969 by which he granted the land to the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was required to pay to the Government the price of the land under sec. 62 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and penalty for unauthorised occupation of that land from 1964-65 onwards. The Collector fixed Rs. 4500. 00 as the price of the land and he demanded of the petitioner Rs. 11250. 00 being 21/2 times the price of the land for fine penalty. This is what he has stated in his order in that behalf. That 2 1/2 times the panchkyas price i. e. Rs. 4500. 00 will be liable and would come to Rs. 11 250 and that would be the amount which would be recoverable as fine for retaining the possession. ( 3 ) THE petitioner challenges in this petition not the order of grant but the fixation of the amount which he is called upon to pay. Since he failed to pay to the Collector Rs. 11250. 00 a notice of eviction has been issued to him. He therefore challenges in this petition that notice of eviction also. ( 4 ) MR. Patel who appears for the petitioner has contended before me that the amount of Rs. 11250. 00 fixed by the Collector is not in accordance with sec. 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rule 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules. ( 5 ) IN order to examine the contention which Mr. Patel has raised before me it is necessary to turn to sec. 11250. 00 fixed by the Collector is not in accordance with sec. 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rule 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules. ( 5 ) IN order to examine the contention which Mr. Patel has raised before me it is necessary to turn to sec. 61 and 62 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Sec. 62 provides as follows:it shall be lawful for the Collector subject to such rules as may from time to time be made by the State Government in this behalf to require the payment of a price for unalienated land or to sell the same by auction and to annex such conditions to the grant as he may deem fit before permission to occupy is given under sec. 60. THE price (if any) paid for such land shall include the price of the Government right to all trees not specially reserved under the provisions of sec. 40 and shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. The price of Rs. 4500. 00 which the Collector has fixed for the land in question has been fixed by him under sec. 62. This section renders it necessary for me to turn to rule 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 37 provides as follows:any unoccupied survey number not assigned for any special purpose may at the Collectors discretion be granted for agricultural purposes to such person as the Collector deems fit either upon payment of a price fixed by the Collector or without charge or may be put up to public auction and sold subject to his confirmation to the highest bidder. IT is not necessary for me to reproduce other sub-rules of Rule 37 because they are incidental in character and have no relevance for the purpose of this case. Reading sec. 62 with rule 37 it is quite clear that the Collector has authority to fix the price to be paid for the land which he grants to a person for agricultural purposes. Mr. Patel has argued before me that the price which the Collector has power to fix under sec. 62 read with rule 37 should be a just and fair price. It cannot be arbitrary or expropriatory. Mr. Patel has argued before me that the price which the Collector has power to fix under sec. 62 read with rule 37 should be a just and fair price. It cannot be arbitrary or expropriatory. In the case of a public land which the Government sells to a person the price which is fixed must in my opinion be a just and fair price. In order that the just and fair price of the land which the Government sells to a person is fixed it is necessary that the grantee should have an opportunity to express his views and to submit to the Collector what fair and just price the land in question would bear. After taking into consideration what the grantee submits to the Collector it is open to the Collector to take into account all other relevant factors and to fix the price of the land in question. In the instant case the price of the land in question was fixed without the knowledge of the petitioner. He did not have any opportunity to express his views before the Collector and to tell him what in his opinion would be just and fair price. Since the petitioner in the instant case did not have such an opportunity it is difficult to say that the price of Rs. 4500. 00 fixed by the Collector for the land in question is a just and fair price. It is therefore necessary to direct the Collector to fix it again after ascertaining the views of the petitioner and after permitting him to submit to him whatever he wants to submit on that aspect of the question. ( 6 ) THE next argument which Mr. Patel has raised relates to the penalty or fine imposed upon the petitioner for remaining in unauthorised occupation of the land in question. The petitioner has been asked to pay a sum of Rs. 11 250 as fine. Mr. Shah has argued before me that it is not a penalty contemplated by sec. 61. According to him it is a penal occupancy price. He has not pointed out to me any section or rule which uses the expression penal occupancy price as distinguished from penalty. However it is not necessary to inquire into this aspect because suffice it to say that the order of the Collector in terms states that the sum of Rs. According to him it is a penal occupancy price. He has not pointed out to me any section or rule which uses the expression penal occupancy price as distinguished from penalty. However it is not necessary to inquire into this aspect because suffice it to say that the order of the Collector in terms states that the sum of Rs. 11 250 which the petitioner has been directed to pay is a fine for his unauthorised occupation of the land until it was granted to him. What fine can be imposed upon an unauthorised occupant is provided by sec. 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Sec. 61 inter alia provides as follows:any person who shall unauthorisedly enter upon occupation of any land set apart for any special purpose or any unoccupied land which has not been alienated and any person who uses or occupies any such land to the use or occupation of which by reason of any of the provisions of this Act he is not entitled or has ceased to be entitled shall if the land which he unauthorisedly occupies forms part of an assessed survey number pay the assessment of the entire number for the whole period of his unauthorised occupation and if the land so occupied by him has not been assessed such amount of assass- ment as would be leviable for the said period in the same village on the same extent of similar land used for the same purpose: and shall also be liable at the discretion of the Collector to a fine not exceeding five rupees or a sum equal to ten times the amount of assessment payable by him for one year if such sum be in excess of five rupees if he has taken up the land for purposes of cultivation and not exceeding such limit as may be fixed in rules made in this behalf under sec. 214 if he has used it for any non-agricultural purpose. SEC. 61 in terms applies to a person who has ceased to be entitled to the use or occupation of the Government land and who thereafter continues to be in occupation thereof. That is exactly what applis to the petitioner s case. He is therefore subjected to two liabilities arising from sec. 61. SEC. 61 in terms applies to a person who has ceased to be entitled to the use or occupation of the Government land and who thereafter continues to be in occupation thereof. That is exactly what applis to the petitioner s case. He is therefore subjected to two liabilities arising from sec. 61. His first liability is to pay the assessment in respect of the land in ques- tion for the entire period of his unauthorised occupation. His second liability is to pay the fine if the Collector in his discretion directs him to do so. The norm as to fine which should be imposed upon an unauthorised occupant has been laid down by sec. 61. It may be Rs. 5. 00 or a sum equal to 10 times the assessment payable by him for one year whichever is higher. This norm applies to a land which has been taken for the purposes of cultivation. It is not in dispute before me that the land in question has been taken by the petitioner for the purposes of cultivation The annual assessment of the land in question is Rs. 10/12ps. Ten times the assessment would mean a sum of Rs. 101/20 ps. If the Collector so directs him he is liable to pay a maximum fine of Rs. 101-20 because it is higher than the other amount specified in sec. 61. In the instant case the Collector has imposed upon the petitioner a fine of Rs. 11250. 00. In my opinion it is in contravention of sec. 61. ( 7 ) IN my opinion therefore the term as to price and fine which the Collector has attached to the grant is not in conformity with the provisions of sec. 62 read with Rule 37 and sec. 61. Therefore that term is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is needless for me to say that it is open to the Collector to fix afresh the price of the land under sec. 62 and the amount of fine under sec. 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 62 read with Rule 37 and sec. 61. Therefore that term is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is needless for me to say that it is open to the Collector to fix afresh the price of the land under sec. 62 and the amount of fine under sec. 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. ( 8 ) I therefore allow this petition issue a writ of mandamus directing the Collector of Baroda to cancel the term as to price and fine which is attached to the grant of the land in question and to fix the amount of price and the amount of fine afresh in accordance with the provisions of sec. 62 read with Rule 37 and sec. 61 respectively and in light of what has been stated in this judgment. In the view which I have taken the notice of eviction served upon the petitioner cannot be sustained I therefore further direct him to cancel the impugned notice of eviction and not to take any action in pursuance thereof. Rule is made absolute with costs. .