GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT v. AMRAJI MOTIJI THAKOR — 1990 DIGILAW 180 (GUJ)

D. P. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) IN First Appeal No. 148 of 1968 the following question which arose for determina- tion has been referred to the Full Bench by M. C. Trivedi J. : whether a notice issued by the authority under Section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (to be referred to as the Code) for dispossession without giving an opportunity to the person concerned to show-cause in a notice in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore ultra vires and bad in law ? it appears that similar question arose in Special Civil Application No. 1099 of 1975 with he result that while issuing Rule in that petition he learned Judge ordered it to be heard with Firs Appeal No. 148 of 1968. The facts which led the filing of First Appeal No. 148 of 1968 only may be shortly stated. That appeal arose from a decree passed in Civil Suit No. 832 of 1964 filed by the respondents against the appellant for a declaraion that the notice issued by the Deputy Collec- tor dated 17/01/1964 for taking away possession of the land in dispute was illegal; and for an injunction restraining the defendant and its servants from disturbing plaintiffs possession of he suit land which is Survey No. 240 admeasuring 3 acres 34 gunthas of Asarva. The land is described as Chakariyu in the revenue records; and the plaintiffs case was that the soil of this land originally belonged to their forefathers and only its land revenue was alienated in favour of their forefathers in lieu of service as village servants useful to the Government to be rendered The defence was that the soil together with land revenue was alienated and therefore both could be resumed The trial Court by its judgment dated 10/11/1968 held that the land revenue only was alienated and not the soil Therefore the declaration and injunction prayed for wore given. ( 2 ) WHEN this appeal came up for hearing before N. C. Trivedi J. on an earlier occasion the learned Judge by his order dated 2 1975 permitted amendment of the plaint by addition of some paragraphs He then directed that the trial Court should raise additional issues on the amended pleadings record additional evidence offered by the parties and certify the findings on the issues to this Court As a result of this the trial Court raised two issues one or which pertained to the challenge to Section 202 of the Code based on Article 14 of the Constitution and the other pertained to the challenge to the impugned notice inter alia on the ground that the same was in violation of principles of natural justice The question referred to the Full Bench pertains to this latter issues viz. issue No. 7 The learned trial Judge held in the negative on this point At the final hearing of this appeal M C. Trivedi J. found that D. A. Desai J. has in Special Civil Application No 500 of 1969 decided on July 10/13 -1970 held that a notice under Section 202 of the Code in itself was a decision or order and that at the stage of its service in the person to whom it is proposed to be served is not heard there was no violation of principles of natural justice because the further provision in Section 202 (paragraph 2) itself contemplates an enquiry in which such person would be entitled to be heard and must be heard This decision of D. A. Desai J. was followed by M. P. Thakkar J. on two occassions one of which was First Appeal No. 374 of 1968 decided on 18/04/1975 Against the judgment in the appeal Letters Patent Appeal No 140 of 1975 was filed Prior to that however M. C. Trivedi J. in some other matters had taken the view which would run contrary to the view taken by D. A. Desai J. because the aforesaid judgment of D. A. Desai J was not brought to his notice. The result was that there were two conflicting views before the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No 140 of 1975 at the stage of admission The Division Bench ageeing with the view of D A Desai J and disagreeing with Trivedi J summarily dismissed the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal ( 3 ) IT was thereafter that Letters Patent Appeal No 149 of 1971 against the aforesaid judgment of D. A. Desai J. in Special Civil Application No 500 of 1968 came to be decided by J. B. Mehta J. and one of us on 15/11/1975 In that case this question was not decided because the appeal could be disposed of on another point However the Division Bench did make some observations on this question which in the opinion of Trivedi J. amounted to expression of doubt as to the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal decided earlier Therefore he has referred the aforesaid question to a larger Bench ( 4 ) SECTION 202 of of the Code relates to a person wrongfully in possession of land; and the question referred is based on the postulate that the notice under Section 202 of the Code is a decision or an order of eviction This is because it was so held by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Secretary of State v. Chimanlal Jamnadas A. I. R. 1942 Bombay 161 (hereafter referred to as Chimanlals case) In this High Court the aforesaid decision has been followed by D. A. Desai J. in the foresaid Special Civil Application No. 500 of 1969 and as stated earlier that view has been approved by the earlier Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 140 of 1975 while summarily dismissing that appeal. ( 5 ) THOUGH the question referred was framed in terms stated earlier in the course of hearing of this reference we proposed and decided to examine the question whether the view of the Bombay High Court in Chimanlals case (supra) as staled above was correct. Therefore we have referred he question as under: whether the notice of eviction under Section 202 of the Code in itself amounts to a decision or order of eviction under that provision? Therefore we have referred he question as under: whether the notice of eviction under Section 202 of the Code in itself amounts to a decision or order of eviction under that provision? If so whether opportunity to be heard is required to be given on the question of eviction to the person against whom such notice is issued ? the relevant provisions bearing on the subject may now be set out. 61 Any person who shall unauthorizedly enter upon occupation of any land set apart for any special purpose or any unoccupied land which has not been alienated and any person who uses or occupies any such land to the use of occupation of which by reason of any of the provisions of this Act he is not entitled or has ceased to be entitled shall if the land which he unauthorizedly occupies forms part of an assessed survey number pay the assessment of the entire number for the whole period of his unauthorized occupation and if the land so occupied by him has not been assessed such amount of assessment as would be leviable for the said period in the same village on the same extent of similar land used for the same purpose and shall also be liable at the discretion of the Collector to a line not exceeding five rupees or a sum equal to ten times the amount of assessment payable him for one year it such sum be in excess of five rupees if he has taken up the land for purposes of cultivation and not exceeding such limit as may be fixed in rules made in this behalf under Section 214 if he has used it for any nonagricultural purpose. The Collectors decision as to the amount of assessment payable for the land unauthorizedly occupied shall be conclusive and in determining its amount occupation for a portion of a year shall be counted as for a whole year. The person unauthorizedly occupying any such land may be summarily evicted by the Collector and any crop raised in the land shall liable to forfeiture and any building or other construction erected thereon shall also if not removed by him after such written notice as the Collector may doom reasonable be liable to forfeiture or to summary removal. The person unauthorizedly occupying any such land may be summarily evicted by the Collector and any crop raised in the land shall liable to forfeiture and any building or other construction erected thereon shall also if not removed by him after such written notice as the Collector may doom reasonable be liable to forfeiture or to summary removal. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector and any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector may direct and the cost of the removal of any encroachment under this section shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. 79 Any person unauthorizedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land: (a) to the use or occupation of which by reason of any of the provisions of this Act he is not entitled or has ceased to be entitled or (b) which is not transferable without previous sanction under Seciton 73a or by virtue of any condition lawfully annexed to the tenure under the provisions of Section 62 67 or 68 may be summarily evicted by the Collector. 202 Whenever it is provided by this or by any other act for the time being in force that the Collector may or shall evict any person wrongfully in possession of land such eviction shall be made in the following manner viz. 202 Whenever it is provided by this or by any other act for the time being in force that the Collector may or shall evict any person wrongfully in possession of land such eviction shall be made in the following manner viz. : by serving a notice on the person or persons in possession requiring them within such time as may appear reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land and if such notice is not obeyed by removing or deputing a subordinatre to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same and if the officer removing any such person shall be resisted or obstructed by any person the Collector shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and that such resistance and obstruction still continue may without prejudice to any pro- ceediings to which such person may be liable under any law for the time being in force for the punishment of such resistance of obstruction issue a warrant for the arrest of the said person and on his appearance commit him to close custody in the office of the Collector or of any Mamlatdar or Mahalkari or send him with a warrant in the form of Schedule 1 for imprison- ment in the civil jail of the district for such period not exceeding thirty days as may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such obstruction or resistance. ( 6 ) IN the present context provisions of Section 9 read with entry 1 in the First Schedule to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act 1957 which confer a right of appeal inter alia against deci- sion or order under Sections 61 and 79-A (except clause (b) thereof) of the Code assume great relevance and may be reproduced:9 Subject to the provisions of this section the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to en- tertain and decide appeals from and revise decisions and orders of officers not below the rank of a Collector or Deputy Commissioner in respect of cases arising under the provisions of the enactments specified in the First Schedule. (2) Save as expressly provided in any enactment for the time being in force the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette direct that the Tribunal shall also have jurisdiction to entertain and decide appeals from and revise decisions and order of such persons officers and authorities in such other cases as the State Government may determine; and for that purpose the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette add to amend or omit any of the entries in the First Schedule and there upon the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction in such matter and the jurisdiction of any other person of ricer or authority therein shall cease. (3) The State Government may at any time in like manner cancel such notification or omit any entry from the First Schedule and resume to itself such jurisdiction: Provided that nothing herein shall prevent the State Government after such resumption of jurisdiction from conferring any such jurisdicion on any other person officer or authority. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force when the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and decide appeals from and revise decisions and orders of any person officer or authority in any manner aforesaid no other person officer or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain and decide appeals from and revise decisions or or- ders of such person officer or authority in that manner. FIRST SCHEDULE (See Section 9.) @@@ Name of enactment. Appellate or revisional jurisdiction against orders or decisions in eases arising under the following provisions. 1 The Bombay Land Section 37 sub-section (2) Revenue Code 1879 (Bom. Section 39a V of 1879 ) Section 43 Section 46 Section 47 Section 61 Section 79a except Clause (b) thereof. THE aforesaid provisions it appears were not in existence when Chimanlals case (supra) was decided by the Bombay High Court. ( 7 ) APART from decided cases the language of the relevant sections reproduced above may first be examined. ( 8 ) SECTION 302 of the Code contemplates a person wrongfully in possession of land who may or shall be evicted by the Collector if it is so provided by the Code or any other Act for the time being in force. ( 8 ) SECTION 302 of the Code contemplates a person wrongfully in possession of land who may or shall be evicted by the Collector if it is so provided by the Code or any other Act for the time being in force. Thus the section itself contemplates a power to evict a person wrongfully in possession of land lying somewhere else in the Code or in some other Act for the time being in force; and a bare reading of Sections 61 and 79a (a) would show that they inter alia confer power on a collector to summarily evict a person unauthorizedly occupying land referred to in Section 61 or a person unauthorizedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land to the use or occupation of which by reason of any of the provisions of the Code he is not entitled or has ceased to be entitled is contemplated by Section 79a (a ). Of course this power is discre- tionary with the Collector as indicated by the words may be summarily evicted by the Collec- tor occurring in Section 79a. Therefore Section 202 would be applicable to persons in respect of whom such power is exercised by the Collector. The question is whether the decision to exer- cise this power or the order to evict such person is to be taken or made under Sections 61 and 79 A (a) or under Section 202 of the Code ? ( 9 ) EX-FACIE there is no reason when the power to summarily evict a person from the land is conferred by these two sections why the order to evict should not be taken to have been made under these sections. The order to evict would necessarily fall under these sections because the power to do so is conferred by these sections. Apart from this if we go by Section 61 we find intrinsic evidence in the said section itself contemplating a decision to be reached with regard to summary eviction of the person covered by that section. This will be clear on a close examination of the scheme of Section 61 itself. Apart from this if we go by Section 61 we find intrinsic evidence in the said section itself contemplating a decision to be reached with regard to summary eviction of the person covered by that section. This will be clear on a close examination of the scheme of Section 61 itself. Its opening portion contemplates three contingen- cies in which unauthorised occupation may arise: (1) unauthorised entry upon occupation of any land set apart for any special pupose (2) unauthorised entry on any unoccupied land which has not been alienated and (3) use or occupation of any of the lands of the aforesaid two categories to the use or occupation of which by reason of any of the provisions of the Code the person in posssession is not entitled or has ceased to be entitled. The section then proceeds to specify the consequences of the acts contemplated by any of the aforesaid contingencies; and the consequences are: (1) liability to payment of assessment of the entire survey number for the whole period of unauthorised occupation (2) liability to pay in addition within the discretion of the Collector a fine not exceeding Rs. 5. 00 or a sum equal to ten times the amount of assessment payable by such person for one year if the said sum be in excess of Rs. 5. 00 if the said person has taken up the land for the purpose of cultivation and (3) liability for summary eviction from such land coupled with forfeiture of any crop raised in the land as well as removal of any building or other construction erected on such land. Such building or construction also becomes liable to forfeiture if not re- moved after reasonable notice. 9 Now with regard to the first consequence viz liability to pay assessment 4 paragraph of the section in terms contemplates a decision of the Collector as to the amount of assessment payable for the land occupied unauthorizedly and makes the said decision conclusive. Similarly with regard to the consequence as to forfeiture of crop raised or the building not removed after reasonable notice the last paragraph of the said section in terms contemplates adjudication by the Collector. Similarly with regard to the consequence as to forfeiture of crop raised or the building not removed after reasonable notice the last paragraph of the said section in terms contemplates adjudication by the Collector. A bare reading of the paragraphs conferring power of summary eviction on the Collec- tor would show that the liability for forfeiture of crop raised in such land is coupled with the liability to summary eviction and would follow as a consequence of summary eviction. This is clear from the words may be summarily evicted by the Collector and any crop raised in the land shall be liable to forfeiture. . . . . . If that is the position the adjudication as to forfeiture would necessarily involve a decision of summary eviction. The section also provides for penalty of fine in the discretion of the Collector. Therefore the Collector would also have to take a decision as to imposition of and quantum of penalty under the section itself. Thus this section itself provides for a decision as to amount of assessment adjudication of forfeiture and a decision as regards imposition of penalty if any. If on these subjects all connected intimately with unauthorised occu- pation of land a decision or adjudication is contemplated under the section itself there is no good reason why we should take a view that decision as to summary eviction is not to be taken under this section itself but is to be taken under Section 202 of the Code by issuing a notice con- templated by that provision. It is in this context that the provisions of Section 9 read with entry I in the First Schedule to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act 1957 assumes great relevance. Section 9 speaks of decisions and orders in cases arising under the provisions of the Code speci- fied inter alia in the first entry of the First Schedule. The first entry in the First Schedule in terms refers to Sections 61 and 79a (a) both of which pertain to unauthorised occupation of land. Therefore the decision or order made appealable by Section 9 in cases arising under Sections 61 and 79-A (a) are decisions or orders under these two sections themselves. The decision as to sum- mary eviction of a person from possession of land is a decision vital to the person concerned who would be an agriculturist cultivating lands. Therefore the decision or order made appealable by Section 9 in cases arising under Sections 61 and 79-A (a) are decisions or orders under these two sections themselves. The decision as to sum- mary eviction of a person from possession of land is a decision vital to the person concerned who would be an agriculturist cultivating lands. There fore it is quite appropriate that a right of appeal is conferred against such a decision. Now if we hold as was done by the Division Bench in Chimanlals case (supra) that the notice under Section 202 of the Code in itself amounts to a decision or order the said view may well deprive such an agriculturist of a very valuable right of appeal. An interpretation of Section 202 which makes the said right of appeal nugatory should not be adopted. ( 10 ) WE have already seen earlier that both Sections 61 and 79-A confer power of summary eviction on he Collector. On first principles a decision as to exercise of this power must be taken to be a decision under the aforesaid substantive provisions conferring powers. ( 11 ) IT is true that Section 202 of the Code is not necessarily confined to the case of persons dealt with under Sections 61 and 79a only. Therefore we must try to find out whether there is anything in Section 202 which notwithstanding the aforesaid discussion based on the provi- sions of Sections 61 and 79a of the Code and Section 9 of the Revenue Tribunal Act may lead us to the conclusion that the notice issued under Section 202 itself amounts to a decision or order. The opening portion of the section refers in terms to the power of the Collector to evict a person wrongfully in possession of the land either under the provisions of the Code or in any other Act for the time being in force. That power we have already seen lies outside the provisions of Sec- tion 202. It is with regard to the eviction of person whose eviction has been decided upon in exer- cise of the aforesaid power that the section makes provision. The section provides for the manner of enforcement of a decision or order of eviction taken in exercise of powers to be found in the Code or in any other law of the time being in force. The section provides for the manner of enforcement of a decision or order of eviction taken in exercise of powers to be found in the Code or in any other law of the time being in force. It is a sort of a provisions similar to execu- tion of a decree of a Civil Court. The mode of enforcing the decision or order is a notice requir- ing the person ordered to be evicted to vacate the land within such time as may appear to the Collector to be reasonable. The need for such notice and giving of reasonable time seems to have been included because the eviction is to take place from land which in many cases may have been put to agricultural use. There is nothing in Section 202 to indicate that the Legislature in- tended this notice to be a decision or order of eviction. The notice to evict within reasonable time ordinarily is not the expression used by the Legislature to denote a decision or order of evic- tion. The provision in the said section as to removal of resistance or obstruction after a summary enquiry also indicates that the section pertains to the domain of execution or enforce- ment of a decision or order already taken or made in exercise of power conferred by some substan- tive provision of the Code or any other Act for the time being in force. The original note to the section reads Collector how to proceed in order to evict any person wrongfully in possession of land. This note also shows the drift of the section in the direction enforcement or execution of decision or order of eviction ( 12 ) IN Chimanlals case (supra) the Bomaby High Court had to deal with the contention based on Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act 1876 The said provision debarred a Civil Court from entertaining any suit against the Government on account of any act or om- mision of any revenue officer unless the plaintiff had first presented all such appeals allowed by law for the time being in force within a period of limitation for institution of the suit. The question arose whether prior to bringing such a suit by the plaintiff in that case an appeal against the notice in respect of the suit land given under Section 202 of the Code should have been presented Divetia J. speaking for the Bench said at page 165 as under:it is clear to my mind that the Government can pass an order for eviction of a person who is wrongfully in possession of land by giving him the notice as prescribed in this section. That notice in fact amounts to a decision or order of the Government to evict the person who is in such wrongful possession. There is no provision in the Land Revenue Code that before the notice under Section 202 is given the Government should actually pass-an order and communicate that order to the party concerned before giving him notice. It is open to the Government to pass an order in the form of a notice and as provided by the section to serve it on the party concerned and if that is done the Government must be deemed to have complied with the provisions of the Land Revenue Code. ( 13 ) THE learned Judge did recognise that the Government has power to summarily evict under Sections 61 66 and 79a of the Code the only reason on which the conclusion mentioned in the aforesaid observations was reached was that there was no provision in the Code showing that before issuing notice under Section 202 the Government should actually pass an order and commu- nicate it to the person concerned. With great respect it is not possible to agree with this reason. In our opinion Section 202 of the Code does not operate in the field of taking a decision or making an order of eviction but it operates in the field of enforcement of that decision or order. The sec- tion contemplates actual eviction if the notice is not obeyed by removing any person who may refuse to vacate the land Not only that if any resistance or obstruction is offered the section also contemplates summary enquiry by the Collector in the facts of the case. The sec- tion contemplates actual eviction if the notice is not obeyed by removing any person who may refuse to vacate the land Not only that if any resistance or obstruction is offered the section also contemplates summary enquiry by the Collector in the facts of the case. If the Collector is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and such resistance or obstruction still continues the same can inter alia be removed by issuing a warrant for the arrest of the person causing resistance or obstruction and his commitment to close custody as provided in the section All these elements would clearly show that Section 202 operates in the field of enforcement of a decision or order as to eviction passed under the substantive provisions contained in the Code or any other Act for the time being in force conferring power on the Collector to evict a person wrongfully in possession of land. ( 14 ) ON behalf of the State it was contended that the notice under Section 202 of the Code should be held to mean a tentative decision of the Collector to evict and that at that stage principles of natural justice were not applicable. It was urged that in this sense the decision of D. A. Desai J. that the person sought to be evicted would get an opportunity to be heard when resis- tance or obstruction is caused should be upheld. There is nothing in Section 202 indicating that the notice contemplated by Section 202 is a tentative decision or order to evict. If this contention were to be accepted the position would be this. In order to get an opportunity to be heard the person in possession against whom notice under Section 202 is sought to been forced must offer resistance or obstruction. If he fails to do so the decision reached or order made to evict him at his back would be enforced and he will be deprived of possession of his land. If such a decision or order made at his back is lawful the contention means that in order to get an opportunity to be heard the person in possession of land should offer resistance to the enforcement of a lawful order. If such a decision or order made at his back is lawful the contention means that in order to get an opportunity to be heard the person in possession of land should offer resistance to the enforcement of a lawful order. It is wellnigh impossible that a poor agriculturist would offer resistance to the enforcement of an otherwise lawful order of eviction clamouring for a right to be heard. We have already shown that Section 202 operates in different field viz. enforcement of a decision or order made under some enabling provision of the Code or any other Act for the time being in force. ( 15 ) D. A. Desai J in Special Civil Application No. 500 of 1969 implicitly relied upon the deci- sion in Chimanlals case (supra); and the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 140 of 1975 agreed with the view of D. A. Desai J. In our opinion and speaking with great respect the view taken in the aforesaid two decisions that the notice under Section 202 of the Code is in itself a decision or order of eviction is not correct. ( 16 ) THEREFORE on the question reframed by us we hold that the notice of eviction under Section 202 of the Code does not amount to a decision or order of eviction; but the said decision or order has to be taken under some substantive provisions conferring on the Collector power to evict a person wrongfully in possession of land contained elsewhere in the code or in any other Act for the time being in force. In view of this answer on the first part of the question there is no question of giving opportunity to be heard to the person against whom decision of eviction has been taken before issuing a notice under Section 202 of the Code. However such an opportunity should be given while reaching the decision of making the offer of eviction under the substan- tive provisions of the Code or any other Act for the time being in force conferring on the Collec- tor power to evict a person wrongfully in possession of land. However such an opportunity should be given while reaching the decision of making the offer of eviction under the substan- tive provisions of the Code or any other Act for the time being in force conferring on the Collec- tor power to evict a person wrongfully in possession of land. ( 17 ) THERE can be no dispute about the application of the principles of natural justice and giving of oppotunity to the person concerned to be heard before reaching a decsion or making an order of eviction which is to be executed under Section 202 of the Code. The position at law as regards application of principles of natural justice is quite well-settled. Only a couple of deci- sion of the Supreme Court may be pointed out in this connection. In Government of Mysore v. J. V. Bhatt (1975)1 Supreme Court Cases 110 the Supreme Court pointed out that if there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. It also said that the former distinction between administrative power and quasi judicial power is being gradually obliterated. On an earlier occasion in Daud Ahmed v. D. M. Allahabad (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 655 a larger bench of the Supreme Court pointed out that the principles of natural justice have been made applicable to administrative enquiries or quasi-judicial enquiries where they affect the right of the person. We may make it clear how- ever that the notice to be given under Section 202 of the Code should be of a reasonable time. The person on whom such a notice is served may appear within that time and make some represen- tation to the Collector requesting him to grant some time to vacate which the latter may consider. We may make it clear how- ever that the notice to be given under Section 202 of the Code should be of a reasonable time. The person on whom such a notice is served may appear within that time and make some represen- tation to the Collector requesting him to grant some time to vacate which the latter may consider. It is also clear that the latter part of Section 202 relating to removal of resistance or obstruction does contemplate a summary enquiry and therefore principles of natural justice would be applicable in that enquiry However the view of D. A. Desai J. in Special Civil Application No 500 of 1969 that the notice under Section 202 itself amounts to a decision or order of eviction and that the person in wrongful possession need not be heard at that stage and he will be entitled to be heard because of the latter part of Section 202 which contemplates a sum- mary enquiry is with respect not correct in view of the reasons given by us above. The latter part of Section 202 comes into operation when there is resistance or obstruction in removal of a person from possession of land Speaking with respect again it would not be correct to hold that a person sought to be evicted from the land under Section 202 by a notice in order to be entitled to be heard should offer resistance or obstruction and that right of his to be heard would flow from the resistance or obstruction to the execution of the notice of eviction. In fact in the view that we have taken on the first part of the question reframed the aforesaid view of D. A. Desai J. does not survive. 12. Our answer to the question re-framed is as under (1) A notice under Section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code does not in itself account to a decision or order of eviction of a person wrongfully in possession of land; but is only a mode of enforcement of such decision or order recorded under the substantive provisions of the Code or any other Act for the time bing in force conferring power on the Collector to evict such person. (2) In view of the above conclusion the question of application of principles of natural justice at the stage of issuing notice under Section 202 does not arise. (2) In view of the above conclusion the question of application of principles of natural justice at the stage of issuing notice under Section 202 does not arise. It is made clear however that the principles of natural justice would be applicable at the stage of recording the decision or order to evict in case of exercise of power by the Collector under Section 61 or 79a of the Code which are some of the substantive provisions in the Code conferring such power on the Collector. (3) The summary enquiry contemplated by the latter part of Section 202 is not meant for reaching or recording a decision or order of eviction. It applies to the contingency of resis- tance or obstruction in taking possession of land in the course of enforcement of a decision or order to evict made under some provision of the code such as Section 61 or 79a or any other Act for the time being in force empowering the Collector to evict a person wrongfully in possession of land. .