G. T. NANAVATI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 4 of in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Olpad for a declaration of his share in the suit property consisting of Survey No. 71/1 and for partition. There was a compromise and preliminary decree in terms thereof was passed by the Court. It was declared that the peti- tioner has 1/4th share and other three co-sharers have 3 share therein. Since separation of the share of the petitioner would have created a fragment the case was referred to the Assistant Collector Olpad Prant Surat for effecting a partition under Section 8aa of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Hold- ings Act 1947 (hereafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 1 to 5 were re- presented before the Assistant Collector by their learned advocates. Before the Assistant Collectors the petitioner had stated that he did not want the land to be partitioned and that entire land should be auctioned and the sale pro- ceeds thereof be divided amongst all the four co-sharers. As against that respondents Nos. 1 to 5 stated that they did not want to get their shares partitioned and they desired to hold their shares jointly as before. Separation of the share of the petitioner would have created a fragment; and therefore the Assistant Collector directed that the petitioner be compensated in terms of money in lieu of his share in the land. He also directed that compensation should be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. That order was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the Collector Surat. The Collector also came to the conclusion that this was a case falling under Section 8aa (2) (a) of the Act; and in view of the facts and circum- stances of the case the order passed by the Assistant Collector was quite fair and proper. He therefore dismissed the appeal. Against that order the petitioner filed a revision application under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code before the Special Secretary Revenue Department. He also agreed with the orders passed by the authorities below and dismissed the revision application. He therefore dismissed the appeal. Against that order the petitioner filed a revision application under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code before the Special Secretary Revenue Department. He also agreed with the orders passed by the authorities below and dismissed the revision application. The petitioner has therefore filed this petition chal- lenging the order of the Assistant Collector as confirmed by the Collector and the Special Secretary. ( 2 ) XXX xxx xxx ( 3 ) WHAT is urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the orders passed by the authorities below are illegal as they had not followed the procedure prescribed by Rule 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmenta- tion and Consolidation of Holdings Rules 1959 (hereafter referred to as the Rules ). He further urged that no notice was given to the petitioner by the Collector before effecting the partition. It is difficult to appreciate this latter submission of Mr. Shethna. The petitioner was a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Collector and he was represented by a lawyer. The order was passed by the Assistant Colector after hearing all the parties- in cluding the petitioner. Therefore unless Mr. Shethna refers to the notice required to be given by Rule 6 of the Rules the contention raised by him becomes unintelligible. ( 4 ) AS regards the contention with respect to non-compliance with the procedure prescribed by Rule 6 first of all it will have to be seen if that Rule applies at all. Section 8aa of the Act in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this petition reads as under:8 (1) Where by transfer decree succession or otherwise two or more persons are entitled to shares in an undivided agricultural land in any local area for which standard areas have been fixed and the land has to be partitioned among them such partition shall be effected so as not to create a fragment. (2) Where such partition is made by the Court or the Collector the following procedure shall be adopted: (a) If in effecting-a partition among several co-sharers it is found that a co-sharer is entitled to a specific share in the land and cannot be given that share without creating a fragment he shall be compensated in money for that share. (2) Where such partition is made by the Court or the Collector the following procedure shall be adopted: (a) If in effecting-a partition among several co-sharers it is found that a co-sharer is entitled to a specific share in the land and cannot be given that share without creating a fragment he shall be compensated in money for that share. The amount of compensation shall be determined so far as practicable in accordance with the provi- sions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 or as the case may be of that Section in its applica- tion to the Saurashtra area of the State of Bombay under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Adaptation and Application) Ordinance 1948 (b) If in effecting a partition it is found that there is not enough land to provide for the shares of all the co- sharers in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) the co-sharers may agree among themselves as to the particular co-sharer or co-sharers should get the share of land and which of them should be compensated in money. In the absence of any such agreement the co-sharers to whom a share of land can be provided and those to whom money compensation should be given shall be chosen by lot in the manner prescribed. ( 5 ) THEREFORE as provided by the said Section when the Collector while effecting a partition among several co-sharers finds that a co-sharer is entitled to a specific share in the land and cannot be given that share without creating a fragment then such a co-sharer is required to be compensated in money for that share. The amount of com- pensation is required to be determined so far as practicable in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In such a case no other procedure is required to be followed. If however while effecting a partition it is found that there is not enough land to provide for the shares of all the co-sharers in accordance with the provi- sions of sub-section (1) the co-sharers may agree among themselves as to the particular co-sharer or co-sharers who should get the share of land and which of them should be compensated in money. If there is no such agreement clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 8 further provides that the co-sharers to whom a share of land can be provided and those to whom money compensation should be given shall be decided by lot in the manner pres- cribed. The manner of choosing by lot the co-sharers for allotment of share of land or money compensation under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 8 is prescribed by Rule 6 of the Rules. Reading the aforesaid Section and Rule 6 together it becomes apparent that the manner prescribed by Rule 6 is required to be followed only in cases covered by clause (b) of sub-section (2) and not in cases covered by clause (a) of that sub-section. In the present case the co-sharers did not want to get their shares partitioned. In fact it was so stated in terms before all the authorities below on their behalf that they wanted their shares to remain joint as before. The case has proceeded before all the authorities below on that basis; and that is the reason why it has been observed by the Collector in his order that. . . . since the co-respondents jointly possess 75 % of the land it would not be appropriate to ask them to forego their share of the land. Since the appellant possesses only 25% of the land the only alternative left was to compensate him in money in accordance with the provisions of Section 8aa (2) (a) of the Act. It was for these reasons that it was held by the authorities below that clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 8aa of the Act would apply to the facts of the present case and not clause (b) of the said sub-section. If that is so the procedure prescribed by Rule 6 on which much reliance has been placed by Mr. Shethna can have no application at all. In my opinion the authorities below were right in taking that view. The orders passed by them cannot be said to be in any manner improper. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. ( 6 ) XXX xxx xxx rule discharged. .