JUDGMENT : S. A. Shah, J. The appellants are the original plaintiffs who have challenged the order of the Revenue Authorities, allotting the lands in their possession to respondents Nos. 4 to 11. 2. The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit, being Civil Suit No. 469 of 1971 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar, for a declaration that they are in possession of various pieces of land, which was a Gharkhed land of the Girasdars. On application of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the said lands were considered as surplus lands of the Girasdars, and according to the plaintiffs, the Sub-Divisional Assistant Collector, Palitana, by his order dated 30-4 - 1971 in Land Work No. 73 of 1971, passed an order allotting the suit lands to other persons without hearing the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also prayed that the said allotment be declared as illegal and void and not binding to them. They have stated that they are the permanent tenants of the suit lands, and that even on the ground of priority the said lands ought to have been allotted to them. They, therefore, asked for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from taking the possession of the suit lands. 3. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3, filed their written statement, contending inter alia that by an order dated 2-1-1971, the Mamlatdar, Botad, had temporarily given the suit lands to the plaintiffs only for one year, i.e. upto 31-3-1971, pending the allotment proceedings of the said lands, and that after the order was passed by the Deputy Collector about the allotment of the suit lands, the said lands had been handed over to Bhangi Sura, Moti Bhikha, Duda Samat, Hira Karshan and Kuka Ala on 10-7-1971, under a regular panchnama. 4. The trial Court had raised an issue, whether the plaintiffs prove that the order of the Assistant Collector, dated 30-4-1971 in Land Work No. 73 of 1971, is illegal, void and inoperative? However, no separate issue regarding non-service of notice under Section 20 or 22 of the Act was raised. 5. 4. The trial Court had raised an issue, whether the plaintiffs prove that the order of the Assistant Collector, dated 30-4-1971 in Land Work No. 73 of 1971, is illegal, void and inoperative? However, no separate issue regarding non-service of notice under Section 20 or 22 of the Act was raised. 5. The learned trial Judge, in para 13 of his judgment, has observed that during the cross-examination the plaintiff has admitted that the suit lands were formerly of the ownership of Girasdar, namely, Suring Ravat, and after the coming into force of the Act, the Revenue Authority has found on inquiry that said Girasdar Suring Ravat was in possession of the excess land, i.e. more than economic holdings, and for that reason the Government had taken away the surplus lands from him. It appears that thereafter, some lands were given to the plaintiffs on Ek Sail basis. From the judgment of the learned trial Judge, it transpires that the Mamlatdar, Botad, on 6-12-1968 passed an order at Exhibit 71/1, though not exhibited, which speaks that from 1-9-1961, the date on which the Act came into force, the land holders who were holding over 96 acres of land were, by a public notice, called upon to give the statement before the Tribunal of the lands held by them, and in pursuance of that notice, Girasdar Suring Ravat submitted his statement, and the Mamlatdar came to the conclusion that Girasdar Suring Ravat had surplus lands of 42 acres and 24 gunthas. It was observed by the learned trial Judge that the said order was passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 20 of the Act. After the said decision of the Mamlatdar, the Assistant Collector in Land Case No. 73 of 1971, by his order dated 30-4-1971, allotted the suit lands to various respondents. The plaintiffs’ Advocate before the trial Court challenged the order of the Assistant Collector on the ground that the plaintiffs were not heard either by the Mamlatdar or the Assistant Collector prior to the passing of the order in respect of the allotment of the suit lands. The learned trial Judge did not accept this contention and ultimately dismissed the suit. The appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1976, preferred by the plaintiffs in the District Court, Bhavnagar, against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed. 6. The learned trial Judge did not accept this contention and ultimately dismissed the suit. The appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1976, preferred by the plaintiffs in the District Court, Bhavnagar, against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed. 6. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the lower appellate Court, has preferred this second appeal before this Court. This Court, while admitting the said appeal, formulated the following substantial question of law: “Whether the proceedings were null and void for want of a notice under Section 20 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act?” 7. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs, it is necessary to understand the Scheme of the Act. Section 10 of the Act provides that a holder of excess land has to file a return with particulars regarding his land. Section 11 of the Act provides for penalty for failure to furnish statement. Section 12 of the Act is a deeming fiction, and under this Section a declaration is to be made that surplus land is handed over for public purpose. Section 13 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to proceed to prepare a list of persons holding surplus land. Section 15 of the Act provides for computation of surplus land, and Section 19 of the Act provides that if a landlord has less than the economic holding, he can take possession of his laird from the tenant if the procedure mentioned therein has been adopted. Then comes Section 20 of the Act, which provides that the Tribunal shall publish a list prepared under Section 13 of the excess land, and call upon the persons affected thereby to submit to the Tribunal their objections or suggestions, if any, within a period of one month from the date of its publication. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, relied upon by Mr. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, relied upon by Mr. H. P. Sompura, learned Advocate for the appellants-plaintiffs, is as under : “(2) As soon as may be after the publication of the list under sub-section (1), the Tribunal shall also serve a notice in the prescribed form on each holder of surplus land included in the list - (a) specifying therein the extent of surplus land held by him and the maximum area of land which he is entitled to hold out of the total land held by him.” Thereafter, clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act requires details to be submitted by the holder of surplus land including selection of area subject to maximum, subject to the order of preference. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act provides for the order of preference for the purposes of the selection of land under subsection (2) of Section 20 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act provides for the selection of land under sub-section (2) where the land is held by each spouse separately. 8. Reading the Scheme of Section 20 of the Act, it appears that the notice which is required under sub-section (2) thereof is a notice to be given to the holder of the surplus land and not to the person who is holding the land which is surplus land, of the Girasdar. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the suit land belonged to Girasdar Suring Ravat and, therefore, notice as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act is required to be served upon the said Girasdar and not upon the plaintiffs who are the holders of the surplus land of Girasdar Suring Ravat, and who, according to the findings of the Courts below, have been inducted after the said lands were found to be surplus by the Government. In this view of the matter, as the notice was not necessarily to be given to the plaintiffs, who are themselves not the holders of the surplus lands but are the holders of the surplus lands of Girasdar Suring Ravat, the decision given by the Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity. 9. In this view of the matter, as the notice was not necessarily to be given to the plaintiffs, who are themselves not the holders of the surplus lands but are the holders of the surplus lands of Girasdar Suring Ravat, the decision given by the Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity. 9. It is the case of plaintiff No. 1 that he was in possession of the suit lands prior to 1961, and that he is a protected tenant. However, in the present suit such a dispute cannot be considered because it is a suit for declaration that the order passed by the Revenue Authority under the Act is illegal and ultra vires. 10. Mr. Sompura, for the appellants-plaintiffs, then asked me to permit him to raise a question that notice under Section 22 of the Act is necessary. As this question was raised before the appellate Court, I permitted Mr. Sompura to raise the said question before me. Section 22 of the Act comes into operation after the Tribunal has published the list of surplus land and made a declaration under Section 21 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act, which is material for our purposes, reads as under: “22 (1) As soon as may be after an order is made under Section 21, the Tribunal shall cause public notice to be given at the village where the surplus land specified in the order is situate, stating that - (a) claims for possession of such surplus land or any part thereof under Section 19, and (b) claims to compensation for all interests in such land, may be made to it.” Though the notice contemplated therein is a public notice and not an individual notice, I will consider this provision on the assumption that an individual notice is necessary. 11. Now, such notice, if necessary, it is in respect of claims for possession of surplus land or any part thereof under Section 19 of the Act. 11. Now, such notice, if necessary, it is in respect of claims for possession of surplus land or any part thereof under Section 19 of the Act. If we refer to Section 19 of the Act, it is clear that if any person who holds the whole or part of the surplus land as tenant, and if the landlord of such land is entitled to the restoration of the possession of such land, and if such a claim is made, then before the surplus land is disposed of by the Tribunal, a notice to the affected person or persons is necessary. In the instant case, Girasdar Suring Ravat has not made any claim for restoration of possession of any land in possession of his tenants. No claim has, therefore, arisen under Section 19 of the Act. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act deals with compensation for all interests in such land, with which we are not concerned. Therefore, even under the provisions of Section 22 of the Act no notice to the persons like the plaintiffs is necessary. The learned Appellate Judge has dealt with this question in para 15 of his judgment, and observed that even if the plaintiffs were required to be heard under Section 22 of the Act, there is ample evidence in the case to show that they were heard and their objections were disposed of by the Agricultural Tribunal. He has further considered that Exhibit 83 is the order of the Mamlatdar in Case No. 3409/71 passed on 2-1-1971, which states that the present appellants (plaintiffs) were given the suit land for one year lease and that they had returned the possession on 31-3-1971. Exhibits 86, 87 and 88 are the undertakings given by the appellants that they would return the land after the expiry of the period mentioned in the said order. In para 16 of his judgment he has observed that the fact that the plaintiffs had filed their claims amply goes to show that they had notice and they were given full opportunity of being heard as per Exhibit 49, and hence, even if the plaintiffs were required to be heard individually, the said condition has been fulfilled by the Tribunal before allotting the land in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 10. 4 to 10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Sompura that individual notice was required to be given to the plaintiffs under Section 20 and/or 22 of the Act before passing of the impugned orders. 12. In the result, this second appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs, and the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are hereby confirmed. Appeal dismissed.