C. V. JANI, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who pur- chased a fragment of agricultural land from respondents Nos. 1 to 4 on 15-5-1971 has chal- langed the order passed by the Deputy Collector Baroda under Section 9 (1) and Section 9 (3) of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 as confirmed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Gujarat (Revenue Department) in revision. ( 2 ) IT appears from the impugned orders that the land admeasuring 1 Acre and 33 gunthas of Survey No. 1067 situated in the outskirts of Karjan in Baroda District was sold for Rs. 7 0 to the petitioner Jiviben Motibhai on 15-5-1971 by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4. When the corresponding entry was made in the revenue record it was not confirmed and proceeding was taken up under the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 (here- inafter referred to as the Act ). After issuing the necessary notices to the parties the Deputy Col- lector Baroda passed an order Annexure-A dated 13-3-1979 declaring that the sale of Survey No. 1067 in favour of the petitioner was void and imposed a fine of Rs. 250. 00 on the transferor under Section 9 of the Act. A further order was passed for summary eviction of the transferee and restoration of the land to the transferor. ( 3 ) THE petitioner Jiviben approached the Government in revision under Section 35 of the Act. The revisional authority also confirmed the aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector by con- curring with him so far as the findings of facts were concerned. ( 4 ) IT is these orders which are being challenged by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) MR. The revisional authority also confirmed the aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector by con- curring with him so far as the findings of facts were concerned. ( 4 ) IT is these orders which are being challenged by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) MR. R. M. Vin learned Counsel for the petitioner has made the submission that the or- ders of both the authorities were erroneous in veiw of the following facts: (I) Survey No. 1067 which was sold to the petitioner was not agricultural land; (II) The said land was situated in the limits of Karjan Municipality and therefore exempted from the rigorous provisions of the Act; (III) There is no proof that the standard area was determined by following the procedure pre- scribed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act; (IV) The Deputy Collector did not record the evidence as per the requirement of the Bombay land Revenue Code; (V) The evidence of Talati was incompletely recorded; (VI) No express show-cause notice was issued regarding the order to be passed under Section 9 of the Act; (VII) The land was wrongly shown to be a fragment in the revenue record; (VIII) The plot which was sold is of irregular shape and so exemption should have been granted. ( 6 ) SO far as the above contentions at Sr. Nos. 1 to 7 are concerned both the authorities namely the Deputy Collector and the Joint Secretary have rendered concurrent findings of facts which cannot be disturbed. So far as the contention No. 8 is concerned it was never submitted for consid- eration of the Deputy Collector or the Joint Secretary. It does no find its place in the petition also. Hence the above contentions are referred to in order only to be rejected. ( 7 ) MR. Vin however submitted that Sub. Sec. (3) of Section 9 of the Act gives discretion to the Collector either to pass an order of eviction or not to pass such an order in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the above contentions are referred to in order only to be rejected. ( 7 ) MR. Vin however submitted that Sub. Sec. (3) of Section 9 of the Act gives discretion to the Collector either to pass an order of eviction or not to pass such an order in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Sub-Sec. (3) of Section 9 reads are under: (3) Any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land the trans- fer or partition of which either by the act of parties or by the operation of law is void under the provisions of this Act may be summarily evicted by the Collector. This point is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Govindsingh Ramsinghbhai Vaghela v. G. Subbarao Asstt. Collector Dholka and Ors. 11 G. L. R. 897 to which my attention has been drawn by Mr. P. C. Master learned Counsel appearing for respon- dants Nos. 1 to 4. Referring to the word used in Section 9 sub-sec. (3) the Division Bench ob- served;the Collector is given the power to summarily evict a person when it is found that by reason of the transfer being void he is unathorizedly in occupation or wrongfully in possession of the land. And this power is obviously conferred upon the Collector to secure enforcement of the salu- tary and beneficial provisions of the Act. If transfer has been made contrary to the provisions of the Act it must not have any effect at all and the status quo ante must be restored for otherwise the object of the Act would be frustrated. Even after the transfer is declared void the transferor may not take action to recover possession of the land for then he would have to return the purchase price received by him which he may not want to do and in that event the land would continue to remain in possession of the transferee and the object of the legislation would be defeated. The Legislature therefore did not leave it to the transferor to adopt proceedings for recovering possession of the land but provided that the Collector may summarily evict the transferee or any other person who is unauthorisedly in occupation or wrongfully in possession of it so that possession could be restored to the transferor and the effect of the transfer obliterated. The Legislature therefore did not leave it to the transferor to adopt proceedings for recovering possession of the land but provided that the Collector may summarily evict the transferee or any other person who is unauthorisedly in occupation or wrongfully in possession of it so that possession could be restored to the transferor and the effect of the transfer obliterated. This Division Bench Judgment has been followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Brahmbhatt Ambalal Ashabhai and Ors. v. Special Secretary Revenue Department and Ors. 24 (2) GLR 1091. The above view pronounced by the Division Bench of this Court is binding on me and I cannot take a different view. ( 8 ) IN the result Rule is discharged. ( 9 ) IT is however hoped that the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 will repay the amount of consideration received from the petitioner at the time of execution of the sale deed after the land is restored to them by the competent authority. ( 10 ) AS per general law of the land when an agreement is discovered to be void or when a contract becomes void any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it to the person from whom he received it. (vide Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 ). Moreover a person to whom money has been paid or anything deliv- ered by mistake or under coercion must repay or return it as per Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act. It becomes an obligation for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to repay the amount of consideration in view of the order passed by the authorities for summary eviction and restoration which is now being confirmed by me. If this obligation is not discharged it may be open for the petitioner to take such legal action as may be permissible under the law. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. .