P. D. MULYE, J. ( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition, filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, may be stated, in brief, thus The petitioner is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, which a representative body of the cotton dealers and businessmen engaged in trade at Indore. It is a very old Association, which was known prior to its registration as a Society also by the name Shri Balaji Ganesh Dalai Panch, Indore. ( 2 ) ON 2-4-1909 in the erstwhile Holkar State, the Balaji Ganesh Dalai panch was granted as Inam, land bearing survey Nos. 30, 31, 32 and 33 having a total area of 8. 46 acres in village Sulka Khedi, Tahsil and District Indore of which the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land and has been paying land revenue in respect of the same. Before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 which came into force on 2-10-1959, the petitioner Association was holding this land as inamdar. On the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue code the petitioner become Bhumiswani by virtue of the provisions of Section 158 of the said Land Revenue Code. ( 3 ) IN the year 1974-75, some members of the petitioners Association had proposed to form a Co-operative Society named Balaji Ganesh Grih Nirman sahakari Sanstha, Indore. The petitioner-Society entered into an agreement with the aforesaid Society to transfer the aforesaid land to it for housing purposes. However, the petitioner put an end to the aforesaid proposed transaction of transfer of land to the Co-operative Society as it could not enter into such an agreement without obtaining prior permission of the Registrar of Society. ( 4 ) ON a complaint being made by certain persons, regarding the said agreement, the Collector called for a detailed report from the Sub-Divisional officer, Indore to find out whether the petitioner has committed any irregularity. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Indore by his report dated 14-7-76 (Annexure-A)found that the petitioner is in possession of the said land as a Bhutniswani and consequently the same cannot be confiscated. However, the respondent-State by an order dated 12th October. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Indore by his report dated 14-7-76 (Annexure-A)found that the petitioner is in possession of the said land as a Bhutniswani and consequently the same cannot be confiscated. However, the respondent-State by an order dated 12th October. 1983 (Annexure-D) ordered confiscation of the said land under Section 6 (3) of the Indore Land Revenue and Tenancy Act (Act No 1 of 1931) on the basis of which the Revenue Commissioner Indore directed the Collector Indore as per Anaexure-E dated 26th October, 1983 to execute the State Government order. ( 5 ) IT is in these circumstances the petitioner has filed this petition with a prayer to quash the State Government order confiscating the said Inam land. ( 6 ) THE respondents in their returns liave submitted that under Section 261 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revanue Code. The State Government was justified in orde'. ing confiscation of the land as the petitioner had violated the inam grant by trying to convert the same for housing pruposes. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Indore land Revenue and Tenancy Act has been repealed with effect from 2-10-1959 according to the provisions of Section 261 of the Madhya Pradesh Land revenue Code as mentioned in Schedule II thereof and consequently the respondents could not resort to the provisions of the Indore Land Revenue and tenancy Act in 1983 when the same was already repealed. He further submitted that on 2-10-1959 and even thereafter the land was used for the same purpose for which the Inam was granted, of which the petitioner became the bhumswani and it is only in 1974-75 that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Housing Society which was subsequently cancelled. He therefore, submitted that even the provisions of Section 261, proviso (b) on which the respondents have placed reliance does not apply as no such right had accrued to the respondents on 2-10-1959, on which date there was no violation of the Inam grant. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the impugned order of confiscation passed by the State Government being illegal and without any authority of law deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 8 ) THE learned Dy. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the impugned order of confiscation passed by the State Government being illegal and without any authority of law deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 8 ) THE learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent state was unable to convince us that under the provisions of a repealed Act, such an order of confiscation could be passed, nor was he able to point out as to how the proviso (b) to Section 261 is attracted in the present case, as there is nothing on record to indicate that prior to 2-10-1959 the petitioner had in any way violated the terms and conditions of the Inam grant, though he did not dispute that the petitioner acquired the right of a Bhumiswami under Section 158 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. It is somewhat surprising and strange that the State Government should have passed the impugned order of confiscation by taking resort to the provisions of a repealed Act under which they had no right or authority to pass such an order which has thus resulted in an illegality. ( 9 ) THUS, after hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that this petition deserves to be allowed as the impugned order passed by the State government Annexure D ordering confiscation of the disputed land has to be quashed as the same cannot be sustained in law, it being illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law. ( 10 ) IN the result this petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned order confiscation passed by the State Government (Annexure-D)dated 12th October, 1983 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are restrained from taking possession of the said property on the strength of the said confiscation order. Counsel's fee Rs. 250/ -. The [amount of security deposit be returned to the petitioner, after due verification. Petition allowed. .