PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of india, challenge is to the orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Vyara and Special Secretary, Revenue Department, respectively on 24/07/1979 and 13/03/1980. ( 2 ) AS per Annexure a Notice dated 4/12/1978 came to be addressed to the petitioner to the effect that the land bearing Survey no. 166/2 and 79 of village Khuntadiya was transferred to the petitioner by Aghriben Dasariya, residing at Paniyari, Taluka Vyara, District Surat in contravention of Sec. 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, and therefore he was liable to be evicted from the said land, After hearing the petitioner the Deputy Collector came to the conclusion that there was no contiguous land of the petitioner so as to hold that the transaction of Transferring the land in question entered into by the petitioner was saved. The Deputy Collector, Vyara, therefore declared the transaction being illegal and imposed penalty of Rs. 250. 00 on the land owner and directed eviction of the petitioner from the land in question under Sec. 9 (3) of the Act. The petitioner bad carried the matter in Appeal before the Special Secretary and after hearing him the Special Secretary also came to the conclusion that there was violation of Sec. 7 of the Act. In answer to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that there was no notice issued under Sec. 6 (2) of the Act, it has been observed that the respondent No. 2 has stated in his reply dated 21-12-1978 before the Deputy Collector that he had no objection with regard to the declaration of the land being a fragment land and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to take objection with regard to notice under sec. 6 (2) of the Act. The Special Secretary there-fore rejected the Revision application. The result is that the petitioner was required to move this court as aforesaid. ( 3 ) THE short question which has been pressed into service by Mr. H. M. Mehta, is that no objection stated on 26-12-1978 does not meet with the requirement of law as per Sec. 6 (2) of the Act. Section 6 of the act reads as under :"section 6 : (1) On notification of a standard area under sub-sec. ( 3 ) THE short question which has been pressed into service by Mr. H. M. Mehta, is that no objection stated on 26-12-1978 does not meet with the requirement of law as per Sec. 6 (2) of the Act. Section 6 of the act reads as under :"section 6 : (1) On notification of a standard area under sub-sec. (3) of section for a local area all fragment in the local area shall be entered as such in the Record of Rights or where there is no Record of Rights in such village record as the (State) Government may prescribe. (2) Notice of every entry made under sub-sec. (1) shall be given in the manner prescribed for the giving of notice under the relevant Code.) of an entry in the register of mutations. "on a plain reading of the aforesaid provision it clearly appears that upon a Notification of a standard area under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 6 for a local area all fragments in the local area are required to be entered as fragment in the Record of Rights. After such entries are made in the Record of rights notice of every such entry is required to be given in the prescribed manner. Giving of notice assumes importance inasmuch as that forms part of the provision contained in Sec. 7 which reads as under :"section 7 : (1) No person shall transfer any fragment in respect of which a notice has been given under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 6 (except to the owner of) a contiguous survey number or recognised sub-division of a survey number : provided that the holder of such fragment may mortgage or transfer it to the state Government or a land mortgage bank or any other co-operative society as security for any loan advanced to him by the State Government or such bank or society as the case may be. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in (any law for the time being in force or in any instrument or agreement), BO such fragment shall be Jeased to any person other than a person cultivating any land which is contiguous to the fragment. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in (any law for the time being in force or in any instrument or agreement), BO such fragment shall be Jeased to any person other than a person cultivating any land which is contiguous to the fragment. " ( 4 ) UPON going through the decision of the Special Secretary it clearly appears that he has proceeded on the assumption that the consent given on 26-12-1978 would meet with the requirement of the provision contained in Sec. 6 (2) read with Sec. 7 (1) of the Act. Such presumption is apparently ill-founded on a bare look at the aforesaid provisions. It would, therefore, be necessary to find out whether the notice as required under Sec. 6 (2) of the Act was given or not. Mr. Solanki, learned A. G. P. for the respondent no. 1 submits that this is a fit case where the matter deserves to be remanded to the Deputy Collector, Vyara, for ascertainment of this fact, viz. , the fact whether the notice as required under Sec. 6 (2) of the Act has been given or not. At this stage it should be noted that the transaction which was complained of in the show cause notice was of the year 1967 and the show cause notice came to be issued as belatedly as in 1977, that is to say, after 11 years. However this question is left open. ( 5 ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances, both the orders in question deserve to be quashed and set aside. Order accordingly. The matter is directed to be remanded to the Deputy Collector, Vyara for deciding the same afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner of hearing. The Deputy collector, Vyara shall ascertain as to whether the notice as required under sec. 6 (2) of the Act was given, and if yes, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to meet with such fact. The Deputy Collector, Vyara, shall decide the matter in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner afresh. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. .