This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the ex parte order dated 30.10.91 passed by the learned Collector, Cachar at Silchar in Land Ceiling Case N6. 7 of 1974-75. The above proceed­ing was started against two tea estates known as Hatticherra lea Estate and Subong Tea Ertate situated in Barak Valley under the provisions of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1956, for short the Act. By the impugned ex parte order which is at Annexure G to the writ petition the ceiling proceeding was finalised and lands measuring 16821 bighas 16 kathas 4 chotak were taken over as ceiling surplus land by the learned Collector from the above two tea estates. While issuing Rule on 22.11.91, this Court directed maintenance of status quo which is still exists and in other words, the land has not yet been taken over by the Collector. 2. The writ petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and petitioner No. 2 is the Senior Manager of the above two tea estates. There were some problems in respect of these two gardens and the gardens were leased out. A civil dispute arose between the lessor and lessee and a receiver was also appointed. Ultimately, the matter went up to the Apex Court and by order dated 8.3.1983 passed in CFP Nos. 27397567 and 9115/83 (in CA No. 1846/72) the Apex Court directed that the possession of the gardens should be banded over by the receiver to the petitioner on conditions laid down by the said order. Ultimately, the writ petitioner got back possession. But during the period under which both the tea estates were under the control of the receiver appointed by the Court, returns as required under the Act were not filed and accordingly some orders were passed by the Collector. Subsequently, by order dated 29th July, 1986 the State Govt. set aside the orders of the Collector and directed the Collector to re-hear the matter afresh after returns were filed by the present writ petitioners. The order of the Govt. is available at Annexure £ to the present petition. 3. After the present petitioners filed returns, proceeding were started as de-novo and it has been alleged that there was a decision for joint verifica­tion. Writ petitioners have alleged that joint verification could not be conducted as no notice was received by the petitioners. The order of the Govt. is available at Annexure £ to the present petition. 3. After the present petitioners filed returns, proceeding were started as de-novo and it has been alleged that there was a decision for joint verifica­tion. Writ petitioners have alleged that joint verification could not be conducted as no notice was received by the petitioners. Therefore, by the impugned order; the Land Ceiling Case No. 7 of 1974-75 was decided ex parte by the Collector and the land the area of which has already been stated was directed to be taken over as ceiling surplus land. It has been urged by Mr. Uzir, learned counsel for the writ petitioners that about 50% of the area of the tea gardens was proposed to be taken over by the impugned order. 4. It appears that after the managements were taken over by the present petitioners there was a proposal for integrated development of the tea gardens which were sick and accordingly a scheme was submitted both to the Tea Board and NABARD. The scheme and letters of NABARD approving the scheme have been annexed as Annexure H series to the present petition. A statement has been made in para 17 of the writ petition that the respondents were fully aware of various development scheme taken by the writ petitioners for development of both the tea gardens. This statement has been dealt with in para 8 of the counter filed by the respondents. But the above statement has not been denied. In other words, the Govt. is fully aware of development schemes taken up by the tea gardens for making the tea gardens economically viable. Mr. Uzir has made a statement at the bar that in pursuance of the above schemes the petitioners have already started rubber, bamboo, coffee and teak plantation in a substantial area of both the tea estates. 5.. Heard Mr. Uzir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Roy, learned Govt. Advocate at length. 6. Mr. Roy has urged drawing attention to sub-section (6) of section? of the Act that the petitioner may approach the State Govt. for exercising its revisional jurisdiction under the above section and at that time all the contentions raised before this Court may also be taken up before the State Govt. and the Govt. Advocate at length. 6. Mr. Roy has urged drawing attention to sub-section (6) of section? of the Act that the petitioner may approach the State Govt. for exercising its revisional jurisdiction under the above section and at that time all the contentions raised before this Court may also be taken up before the State Govt. and the Govt. after setting aside the ex parte order shall decide the entire matter on merit and in accordance with law. Mr. Uzir has fairly stated that the petitioners are ready and willing to do so. 7. But before I dispose of the petition as prayed for I may like to refer to the law laid down by this Court in this regard : 8. Clauses (a) and (f) define 'Agriculture' and 'land'. The said definition runs as follows : "(a) 'Agriculture' includes horticulture, arboriculture, pisciculture, piggery, animal husbandry, poultry and other allied pursuits; (b) 'Land' means land which is or may be utilised for agricultural purpose or purposes subservient thereto, and includes land which is or may be utilised for quarrying stones;" According to Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (Revised Edition; 1976) the word 'Arboriculture' means Forestry, the culture of trees, specially timber trees. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in Barduar Tea and Timber Company vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Gauhati, AIR 1973 Gauhati 131 held in respect of the Act that the very foundation for jurisdiction to acquire land under the Act is that the subject matter of acquisition must be 'land' as defined in section 3 (f) of the Act and as the object of the Act is to make surplus land available for settlement for cultivation, the object would not be achieved if land sought to be acquired was not a cultivable one, like deep forest or Sal plantation. According to Division Bench any order of acquisition passed without consideration of the above fact is without jurisdiction. 10. In view of the statement made regarding starting of coffee, rubber, bamboo and teak plantation by the petitioner company, while disposing of the revision petition, the State Govt. shall bear in mind the above law laid down by this Court and if necessary joint verification may also be ordered. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute. Petitioners are directed to approach the State Govt. shall bear in mind the above law laid down by this Court and if necessary joint verification may also be ordered. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute. Petitioners are directed to approach the State Govt. under section 7 of the Act within a period of 2 months from today. It is needless to say if the above petition is filed even beyond time, the period of limitation shall be deemed to have been condoned by this Court and the petition shall be accepted, the pending proceeding before the Collector shall be called for and the revision petition shall be disposed of in accordance with law and keeping in view the above law. No costs.