A. S. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner here is a Registered Trust which runs an institution called Khoda Dhor Panjarapole Sans- tha looking after the old and invalid cattle. They claim to have been granted the suit land by the former Jagirdars bearing survey No. 38 admeasuring 591 acres and 10 gunthas situated at village Sudrosan Taluka Kankarej Dis- trict Banaskantha. An action was sought to be taken against them under Section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereafter called the Code) evicting them from the land on the ground that the said land belonged to the State by virtue of the provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories Areas (Jagir Abolition Act) 1954 (hereafter referred to as the Jagir Abolition Act ). The said notice was challenged before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1587/74. This Court (Coram: N. H. Bhatt J.) by its judgment and order dated 22 held that the impugned notice was illegal and the respondent State could not take possession of the said land without following the proper procedure namely coming to a decision that the petitioner is liable to be evicted after hearing him. About two mon- ths after the said decision of this Court the Mamlatdar Kankarej issued the impugned notice Annexure D dated Nil May 1978 calling upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of the land in question to the Circle Officer Tha- rad for and on behalf of the State within 10 days without fail. By the communication dated 8th May 1978 the Mamlatdar Kankarej further informed the petitioner that he was holding the said land improperly and that the Collector had power to evict him under Section 202 of the Code. This communication was couched in the form of a notice calling upon the petitioner to hand over possession of the said land within 10 days. The said two notices are under challenge in this petition. ( 2 ) MR. K. G. Vakharia the learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the respondent had no power to give the said impugned notices to the petitioner without following the proper procedure namely to hear the peti- tioner and to come to a decision that the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the said land. Mr. ( 2 ) MR. K. G. Vakharia the learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the respondent had no power to give the said impugned notices to the petitioner without following the proper procedure namely to hear the peti- tioner and to come to a decision that the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the said land. Mr. Vakharia has urged that this is precisely what this Court had held in respect of this very land in the aforesaid Special Civil Appli- cation No. 1587/74. In spite of that the Mamlatdar Kankarej has issued the impugned notice without any appli- cation of mind and in total disregard of the aforesaid decision of this Court which according to him is liable to be quashed and set aside as being violative of the principles of natural justice in-as much as the order of eviction is made without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. ( 3 ) MISS K. N. Valikarimwala the learned Assistant Government Pleader has urged that reading Section 202 of the Code it is clear that the Collector can pass an order of eviction against a person who is wrongfully in possession of land by serving a notice on him and only after the notice is disobeyed and the person resists or obstructs taking possession then only the Collector is required to hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case and to pass an appropriate order after hearing the party concerned. Miss Valikarimwala therefore submits that the petitioner would be given an opportunity to be heard only after the notice is served on him and he resists or obstructs the Col- lector taking possession. This submission of Miss Valikarimwala is not tenable. The petitioner has to be given an opportunity to be heard before the decision to evict him is arrived at. Any decision which is taken without hearing the petitioner would obviously be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence the notice of eviction must follow and not precede the hearing given to the petitioner and the decision arrived at to evict the petitioner. The impugned notice therefore will have-to be struck down. ( 4 ) IT is surprising that before issuing the impugned notices the officer concerned has not cared to read the afore- said judgment of this Court. The impugned notice therefore will have-to be struck down. ( 4 ) IT is surprising that before issuing the impugned notices the officer concerned has not cared to read the afore- said judgment of this Court. It is difficult to know whether the impugned notices were issued in ignorance of the said decision of this Court or whether they are the result of non-application of mind by the officer concerned or whe- ther they are due to personal mala fides of the officer concerned. In either case it is reprehensible. It is hoped that an officer in a responsible position would apply his mind before issuing the notices or orders of the type which are impugned here. Once again it is pointed out that the authority concerned may take action under Section 202 of the Code if they so desire after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and after arriving at the deci- sion that he is liable to be evicted under the said Section. In the result the petition succeeds. The impugned notices Annexures D and E are quashed and set aside. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. Rule made absolute. .