J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) A short but interesting question which has come up for adjudication in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether a grantee should have an opportunity of hearing before the Authority who has to exercise the powers for regularisation and fixation of price and also payment of fees for unauthorised occupancy under the provisions of Section 61 read with Section 62 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 (the Code for short) read with Rule 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules 1972 (the Rules for short ). ( 2 ) ). The petitioner has been in possession of land admeasuring 1210 sq. yds. being part of Survey No. 145 of village Chikhli Taluka Savarkundla District Bhavnagar since the time of his forefathers and also since the erstwhile Bhavnagar State (the disputed land for short ). As per the contention of the petitioner the disputed land is wasteland and is unauthorisedly occupied by the petitioner He has made use of the land for residence and other purposes and he has also constructed a house on the part of the said land. ( 3 ) ). The petitioner has inter alia also contended that his forefathers had constructed a house and he has been making use of the remaining land for agricultural and ancillary purpose. The petitioner tried to get his name mutated in revenue record. The Circle Inspector of Savarkundla Taluka initiated proceedings under Section 61 of the Land Revenue Code Consequently Mamlatdar Savarkundla registered Encroachment Case No. 76 of 1978. Since the petitioner admitted the fact that he has been in possession of the Government wasteland in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar the Mamlatdar by his order dt. 12th January 1979 imposed fine exercising his powers under Section 61 of the Land Revenue Code Subsequently the petitioner made an application to the Collector Bhavnagar for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation by submitting application on 22nd January 1980 placing reliance upon a Government Resolution dt. 8 January 1980 which provides guidelines for regularisation of such cases of encroachment. ( 4 ) ). The concerned Mamlatdar after observing necessary formalities and examining the case of the petitioner made a recommandation to the Collector that the possession of the petitioner in respect of disputed land may be regularised in respect of land admeasuring 1210 sq. yds. 8 January 1980 which provides guidelines for regularisation of such cases of encroachment. ( 4 ) ). The concerned Mamlatdar after observing necessary formalities and examining the case of the petitioner made a recommandation to the Collector that the possession of the petitioner in respect of disputed land may be regularised in respect of land admeasuring 1210 sq. yds. As the power to regularise remains with the State Government the case was sent to the first respondent-State of Gujarat in Revenue Department. ( 5 ) ). After the decision was taken by the Government respondent No. 2-Collector Bhavnagar passed an order on 25-9-1981 whereby it is decided - (1) to regularise the possession of the petitioner only in respect of 622 sq. yds. of the disputed land which was used for residential purpose out of total unauthorised occupation of 1210 sq. yds (2) to put a condition of payment of penal price of two and half times calculated at Rs. 7-50 ps. per sq. yd. 6 Thus the Department decided following three things : (i) That the regularisation should be only in respect of 622 sq. yds. out of 1210 sq. yds. (ii) That the price of the land unauthorisedly occupied should be assessed at Rs. 7-50 ps. per sq. yd. (iii) That the penal price should be fixed at two and half times the price fixed at Rs. 7. 50 ps. per sq. yd. The petitioner was accordingly directed to pay Rs. 11 662 towards market price over and above educational cess local fund etc. ( 6 ) ). The petitioner challenged the order of respondent No. 2 Collector against fixation of the market price by filing revision under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code to the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department at Ahmedabad. The revision was refused to be entertained on the ground that the impugned order of respondent No. 2 came to be passed pursuant to the order passed by the State Government on 25th September 1981. In short it was held in the revision petition No. 740 of 1982 by the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department that the order passed by the Government cannot be the subject-matter of revision under Section 211 of the Code. ( 7 ) ). In short it was held in the revision petition No. 740 of 1982 by the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department that the order passed by the Government cannot be the subject-matter of revision under Section 211 of the Code. ( 7 ) ). The Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department while entertaining and adjudicating upon the order of the Government under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code is exercising quasi-judicial power if not judicial power. Whether the refusal by the Secretary (Appeals) to decide revision on the ground that the Government has passed the order requires serious consideration but since this aspect is not pressed in this petition it is left open. One authority may take one decision on Administrative Side by exercising statutory powers and it may happen that the same authority or the officer of the authority may have to exercise quasi-judicial or judicial powers on the same matter by exercising statutory powers. For example High Court may take a decision to dismiss officer in accordance with law on its administrative side could be allowed to say that the writ petition would not lie as the decision has already been taken by High Court. This is an important question requiring serious consideration. However this court is not called upon to enter into that arena in this petition and therefore it is left open. ( 8 ) ). The petitioner has sought following reliefs : (1) To direct the respondent to regularise the entire land admeasuring 1210 sq. yds. which is in possession of the petitioner pursuant to the 44 Government Resolution dt. 8th January 1980 as amended from time to time. (2) To direct the respondent-authority to fix the purchase price after hearing the petitioner with regard to the entire land as the fixation of the price in respect of land admeasuring 620 sq. yds. is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. (3) To direct the respondent-authority to fix purchase price at Rs. 1. 20 ps. per sq. yd. or any other price in accordance with the guidelines prescribed for fixation of such price after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. (4) To restrain the respondent from taking decision of the remaining land admeasuring 580 sq. yds. out of 1210 sq. yds. which is in possession of the petitioner and for which he has sought regularisation. ( 9 ) ). (4) To restrain the respondent from taking decision of the remaining land admeasuring 580 sq. yds. out of 1210 sq. yds. which is in possession of the petitioner and for which he has sought regularisation. ( 9 ) ). The respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply wherein the averments made in the petition are traversed and the contentions raised in the petition are also challenged. It is inter alia contended that the petitioner was knowing the market value and therefore the petitioner was specifically called upon to state whether he was prepared to make payment of penal occupancy price at two and half times of the market value of the land. It was stated by the respondent-authority in the said letter that if the petitioner was not prepared to pay the market price and penal occupancy as suggested in the letter the petitioner cannot get the regularisation of the part of the unauthorised occupied land. The letter was replied by the petitioner on 25-11-1980. There is no dispute about reply of the petitioner. He had inter alia contended that lower price should be accepted for giving him total and admeasuring 1210 sq. yds. after regularisation. Relying upon the said reply it is contended in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioner knew about the market price and therefore he was not required to be heard before passing the impugned order. ( 10 ) ). It is in this context which has been seriously contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order passed on 21-9-1982 by the respondent No. 2 is illegal as the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed. There is no dispute about the fact that despite reply of the petitioner to the letter written by respondent No. 2 about market price and the proposed penal price and regularisation only to the extent of land admeasuring 622 sq. yds. no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The statutory authority and that too Government authority exercised the statutory power under Section 61 read with Section 62 of the Land Revenue Code and also read with Rule 37 of the Land Revenue Code without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. This is precisely the point in focus in this petition. ( 11 ) ). The statutory authority and that too Government authority exercised the statutory power under Section 61 read with Section 62 of the Land Revenue Code and also read with Rule 37 of the Land Revenue Code without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. This is precisely the point in focus in this petition. ( 11 ) ). It is true that right to get unauthorised occupancy of the land regularised under the Government resolution is available to the petitioner. The respondent-authority has power to consider such a request for regularisation in exercise of its authority under the said Government resolution and has also to fix the market price and also to fix the penal price under the provisions of Section 61 read with Section 62 and also read with Rule 37. The question which requires serious consideration is whether the exercise of such a statutory right for such an order like the impugned order without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner ? ( 12 ) ). In this connection it would be necessary to have a close look at the provision of Section 61 of the Land Revenue Code. It provides penalties for unauthorised occupation of Government land. It also gives the authority of the Collector to summarily evict any person unauthorisedly occupying Government land. If the persons unauthorisedly remained in possession of the Government land they could be summarily evicted by the Collector. Any crop raised in such land can also be liable to be forfeited and any building or construction erected thereon shall also if not erected by him after such written notice as the Collector may deem reasonable be liable to be forfeited or summarily removed. Thus wide powers are given for encroachment on the Government land to the Collector. The decision of the Collector if the amount of assessment payable for the land unauthorisedly occupied will be conclusive. ( 13 ) ). Section 60 of the Land Revenue Code makes the provisions for granting of unoccupied land on certain conditions. ( 14 ) ). Section 62 of the Land Revenue Code reads as under : unoccupied land may be granted on condition. ( 13 ) ). Section 60 of the Land Revenue Code makes the provisions for granting of unoccupied land on certain conditions. ( 14 ) ). Section 62 of the Land Revenue Code reads as under : unoccupied land may be granted on condition. It shall be lawful for the Collector subject to such rules as may from time to time be made by the (State Government) in this behalf to require the payment of a price for unalienated land or to sell the same by auction and annex such conditions to the grant as he may deem fit before permission to occupy is given under Section 60. The price (if any) paid for such land shall include the price of the (Government) right to all trees not specially reserved under the provisions of Section 40 and shall be recoverable as arrear of land revenue. ( 15 ) ). It becomes very clear from the scheme of the provisions of Section 61 and Section 62 that any person who has made an encroachment or who has occupied Government land without the prior permission in writing of the Mamlatdar as required under Section 60 can be penalised directed to pay penal price and also can be summarily evicted under the provisions of Section 61. The encroachment on the Government land could also be regularised by the resolution of the Government dt. 8-1-1980 read with Section 62 of the Land Revenue Code. ( 16 ) ). It will also be interesting to look at the provision of Rule 37 of the Land Revenue Rules at this stage so as to thoroughly examine the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in this petition. Rule 37 gives power to the revenue authority for the disposal of survey numbers. Thus the grant of the land for agricultural purpose could be made by the revenue authority under Rule 37 The concerned Collector has a wide discretion for the grant of land for agricultural purposes to such a person as the Collector deems fit either upon payment of price fixed by the Collector or without the charge or may be also by putting it in public auction. Thus the wide statutory discretionary powers are given to the revenue authority under the. Said provisions. Such powers obviously ought to be exercised fairly and reasonably and not arbitrarily or capriciously. ( 17 ) ). Thus the wide statutory discretionary powers are given to the revenue authority under the. Said provisions. Such powers obviously ought to be exercised fairly and reasonably and not arbitrarily or capriciously. ( 17 ) ). The price to be fixed of the land for agricultural purpose must not be at the whims of the authority but has got to be just and fair. A fine which can be imposed upon an unauthorised occupant is also provided in Section 61 of the Land Revenue Code. The conjoint reading of provisions of Section 62 of the Land Revenue Code and Rule 37 of the Land Revenue Rules makes it abundantly clear that the Collector has an authority to fix the price to be paid for the land which he grants to a person for agricultural purposes. Obviously such price must be just and fair and not arbitrary or capricious. ( 18 ) ). The petitioner has specifically cited one instance in respect of the land of the very village wherein for the regularisation the price is fixed at the rate of Re. 1/- per sq. yd. by the order dt. 30th December 1977. In one piece the land price is also fixed at the market price at Re. 1/- per sq. yd as per averments narrated in Para 5-A of the petition. In case of petitioner in the same village the market price is fixed at Rs. 7. 50 ps. per sq. yd. It is in this context it has been vehemently canvassed that the respondent-authority has arbitrarily fixed the market price and that too without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After fixing the market price at Rs. 7. 50 ps. per sq. yd. the penalty of two and half times of the market price is imposed on the petitioner. Before finalising the market price of the disputed land it is not in dispute that the petitioner was not given an opportunity either by respondent No. 1 of Gujarat or by respondent No. 2 By letter dt. 6-8-1980 the petitioner was only called upon to state whether he was prepared to make the payment of penalty occupancy price at two and half times of the market value of the land and in affidavit-in-reply it is also not made clear that the market price Rs. 7. 50 ps. per sq. yd. was also stated in the said letter. 6-8-1980 the petitioner was only called upon to state whether he was prepared to make the payment of penalty occupancy price at two and half times of the market value of the land and in affidavit-in-reply it is also not made clear that the market price Rs. 7. 50 ps. per sq. yd. was also stated in the said letter. It is the case of the respondent authority that if the petitioner was agreeable for payment of penalty occupancy price at two and half times the penal occupancy price to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 7. 50 ps. per sq. yd. and then only proposal of regularisation could be made and not in any other case. The reply was given by the petitioner on 25-11-1980 wherein he has requested the authority for lower price and for giving him total land in his unauthorised occupation at 1210 sq. yds. When a person is going to be visited with penal consequences mere writing a letter could not be said to be a sufficient opportunity of hearing and that too in absence of stating as to at what rate two and half times penalty was sought to be charged. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that fixing of the market value at Rs. 7. 50 ps. sq. yd. is as per Government policy and rules. It may be so. But whether it is so nothing is placed on record to substantiate this contention raised in the affidavit-in-reply. How the market price has been fixed is not clearly stated. No any earlier decision or any resolution or any relevant rule has been pointed out under which the authority after full application of mind has reached the conclusion to fix the market price. ( 19 ) ). The petitioner challenges in this petition not the order of grant of the part of the disputed land but fixation of the amount which he is called upon to pay by letter. The petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 11 662 towards the. market price over and above educational cess local fund etc. as manifested by the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 21-9-1982 at Annexure A. The market price is assessed at Rs. 7. 50 ps. while regularising the encroachment in respect of the disputed land admeasuring 622 sq. yds. Therefore that part of the land comes to Rs. market price over and above educational cess local fund etc. as manifested by the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 21-9-1982 at Annexure A. The market price is assessed at Rs. 7. 50 ps. while regularising the encroachment in respect of the disputed land admeasuring 622 sq. yds. Therefore that part of the land comes to Rs. 4 665 The penal price at the rate of two and half times is assessed at Rs. 11 662. 5 ps. over and above other taxes from the date of encroachment. It is true that from conjoint reading of Section 62 read with Rule 37 it is very clear that the concerned Collector has authority to fix the price to be paid for the land which he grants to a person for agricultural purposes. It is contended that the prices which the Collector has power to fix ought to be fair and reasonable and just and it should not be arbitrary or whimsical. In the case of a public land which the Government authority sells to a party the price has to be fixed by the Collector but it should be fair just and reasonable. In order that just fair and reasonable price of the land which the Government sells to a person is fixed it is imperative that the allottee gets an opportunity to express his views and gives material to the Collector so that the Collector concerned can fix up fair and just price which the disputed land would bear. Before exercising his discretion the Collector is obliged to take into consideration the submissions or the material supplied by allottee alongwith other relevant aspects and factors so that the Collector could fix fair and just market price of the land in question. In the case on hand the price of disputed land is assessed and fixed by the Collector without the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner has no opportunity to know the price of land fixed and also to submit his contentions or the material. Therefore it cannot be contended that fixation of price of Rs. 4665 is just fair and reasonable. After fixing market value at Rs. 4 665 in respect of disputed land he is directed to pay two and half times of the said price like that an amount of Rs. 11 662 by way of penal occupancy price. ( 20 ) ). 4665 is just fair and reasonable. After fixing market value at Rs. 4 665 in respect of disputed land he is directed to pay two and half times of the said price like that an amount of Rs. 11 662 by way of penal occupancy price. ( 20 ) ). It is true that the penalty or penal occupancy price for unauthorised occupation of the disputed land until it is granted to the petitioner by virtue of provision of Section 61 of the Land Revenue Code. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the expression penal occupancy price is not the penalty or the fine. The impugned order directs that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 1 662. 5 ps. to the Government by way of penal occupancy price in respect of 622 sq. yds. out of the disputed land. . ( 21 ) ). Section 61 of the Land Revenue Code would apply in a case where a person is found in unauthorised occupation of the Government land. The petitioner has incurred liabilities arising from the provision of Section 61 for making an encroachment or using unauthorisedly the Government land. Firstly he has to pay the assessment in respect of disputed land for the entire period of his unauthorised occupation. Secondly he is also obliged to pay a fine if imposed by revenue authority. Thus the penalties are provided in Section 61 for unauthorised occupation of land. Any person either who is not entitled to or is ceased to be entitled to is liable for penalties for unauthorised occupation of the land. Thus any person unauthorisedly occupying any such land could also be summarily evicted by the Collector under Section 61. Under Section 61 the unoccupied land or land unauthorisedly occupied could be granted on certain conditions. ( 22 ) ). The doctrine audi alteram partem means hearing to otherside is not the relic of the past but the living in force of the day. No man could be condemned unheard. This doctrine is not confined to the conduct of strictly legal Tribunals but is enable to every Tribunal or authority or body of persons is invested with the authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences or penal measures to individuals. The party whose civil rights are to be affected by exercise of quasi-judicial authority or the statutory authority must have an opportunity of hearing. The party whose civil rights are to be affected by exercise of quasi-judicial authority or the statutory authority must have an opportunity of hearing. The party who is going to be visited with civil or evil consequences is supposed to know basis and reasons why such orders are passed. against him. It cannot be contended that as the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the Government land he is not entitled to an opportunity of hearing. What should be the extent and nature of an opportunity of hearing will obviously depend upon the facts and circumstances. In a given case where judicial or quasi-judicial authority acts or statutory authority performs its statutory duties there must be a fair and just decision. There are no universal rules as to particularly which rules require to be applied for natural justice. There is a minimum established force even. Whether statute is silent provided function is held to be statutory or quasi-judicial affecting rights of the party but due to that nature of hearing extent of observations of principles of natural justice is required to be determined upon construction of the governing statute the nature of functions to be discharged by the authority and the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the country where we are wedded to the doctrine of welfare state and where the rule of law is one of the basic features of our constitution the government authority or the statutory agency must give minimum opportunity of hearing to put up his case to the person who is likely to be adversely affected or is going to visit civil or evil consequences in absence of specific provisions in the statute. The case of the petitioner from inception is that in the disputed land a farm house is constructed in part and in remaining part the fodder and implements of the agriculture are kept. There are also trees grown in part of the land. He requested the authority to regularise unauthorised occupation in respect of the entire disputed land as the use is made since the time of his forefathers before the Independence. He has not objected to fixing of market price at Rs. 7. 50 ps. per sq. yd. He contended that the adjoining land unauthorisedly held by even Pancha Dahya was regularised by the Collector by passing an order on 9-3-1981 on payment of market price of Rs. He has not objected to fixing of market price at Rs. 7. 50 ps. per sq. yd. He contended that the adjoining land unauthorisedly held by even Pancha Dahya was regularised by the Collector by passing an order on 9-3-1981 on payment of market price of Rs. 1. 20 ps. He also requested for reduction of penal occupancy price. In short he requested the authority that the entire disputed land should be regularised on payment of market price of Rs. 1. 20 ps. reducing the penal occupancy price in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and particularly long user since time of his forefathers. These contentions were reiterated before the revenue authority but revision was not entertained on merits under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code as aforesaid. ( 23 ) ). Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the relevant provisions of law this court has no hesitation in finding that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2-Collector on 21-9-1982 at Annex-A is patently illegal and without observance of principles of natural justice. Therefore it is required to be set aside. Consequently matter is required to be remanded to respondent No. 2-Collector for fresh decision after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. ( 24 ) ). In Harijan Vithalbhai Madhabhai v. Krishnamurthy the Collector Baroda and Anr. 17 G. L. R. 525 this Court has also held that the price to be fixed of a land for agricultural purposes must be just and fair. A grantee should have an opportunity to express his view regarding price. This view of this court is also fortified by the aforesaid decision of this court. ( 25 ) ). In the result this petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside. The matter is sent back to respondent No. 2-the Collector Bhavnagar for fresh decision in respect of entire land after giving the-opportunity of hearing to the petition. ( 25 ) ). In the result this petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside. The matter is sent back to respondent No. 2-the Collector Bhavnagar for fresh decision in respect of entire land after giving the-opportunity of hearing to the petition. Needless to mention that it will be open for the Collector to fix afresh price of the land and penal occupancy price and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in light of the provisions of Sections 61 and 62 of the Land Revenue Code and Rule 37 of the Land Revenue Rules and relevant resolutions of the Government and in light of the observations made hereinbefore in this judgment. The petitioner is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. .