JUDGMENT : J.N. Bhatt, J. The petitioner company has challenged the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat dt. 21-6-1983, confirming the order passed by respondent No. 2-Collector dt. February 2, 1983 by filing this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner company was given land on lease for the purpose of starting salt work by a registered deed dt. 30-9-1955. The lease was in respect of 2998 Acres of land for the period of 25 years for its specific purpose of manufacturing Salt Work for his captive consumption. 3. Chhaya Gram Panchayat complained to the Mamlatdar on 7-2-1975 that the petitioner company had encroached upon certain public land by constructing Channal for Salt Work. It was alleged that the encroachment was in respect of eight and half Acres of land. The 'petitioner company was heard by respondent No. 3-Mamlatdar in respect of complaint filed by the said Panchayat who decided and passed the Order on 17-5-1977. By virtue of the order of respondent No. 3, the fine was levied for making an encroachment and fine was paid by the petitioner company. The respondent No.3 had also directed the petitioner-company to file an application for regularisation in respect of an unauthorised occupation of the land before the appropriate authorities. 4. The petitioner applied to respondent No. 2-Collector, Junagadh for regularisation by making an application on 5-7-1977. Respondent No. 2 decided an application for regularisation by passing an order on 22-9-1980. By the said order, respondent No. 2-Collector agreed to regularise the encroachment made by the petitioner-company on following conditions: - (i) Levy of penal premium; (ii) Penal rent of 25% of the penal premium per month; (iii) Penal assessment + (plus) surcharge etc. 5. Penal premium was determined by the Collector on the basis of land value at the rate of Rs. 9/- per sq. mt. which was fixed on the basis of the opinion of the Deputy Town Planning Officer of Junagadh. Accordingly, the demand notice was issued upon the petitioner from Talati-cum-Mantri on 2-1-1981. The demand made in the notice came to the extent of Rs. 9,68,070-82 Ps. The total amount by way of yearly rent for the entire land used for Salt Work ad measuring about 2398 Acres was Rs. 7,194/-. As against this, respondent No. 2-Collector fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 9/- per sq. The demand made in the notice came to the extent of Rs. 9,68,070-82 Ps. The total amount by way of yearly rent for the entire land used for Salt Work ad measuring about 2398 Acres was Rs. 7,194/-. As against this, respondent No. 2-Collector fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 9/- per sq. mt. for a small piece of eight and half Gunthas which almost comes to 1 /5th of an Acre. Thus, the annual rent in respect of 1/5th of an Acre is assessed initially at Rs. 27,786/ per year. Whereas the annual rent for the entire lease land ad measuring 2398 Acres was fixed at Rs. 7,194/- per annum. The grievance of the petitioner is that such a value assessed by respondent No. 3 is not only fantastic but exaggerated and illegal. 6. The petitioner company carried the matter before respondent No. 1-Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat by way of revision under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. After hearing the parties, the revision was allowed and the matter came to be remanded to respondent No. 2forfresh decision on merits. Thus the remand order was passed by respondent No. 1 on 27-8-1992. 7. Respondent No. 2-Collector again heard the matter on remand and decided the matter in the same way as it was decided earlier. Respondent No. 2 firstly decided on 22-9-1980 and decided second time on remand order on 2-2-1987. Substantively observations made after remand order and in revision order are the same. On reading both the orders, it can safely be said that except the clarification that the rent per sq. mt. was not per month but for per year, observations in both the orders are the same. 8. The petitioner company again challenged the second order of respondent No. 2-Collector under Section 211 by filing revision before respondent No. 1 by withdrawing Special Civil Suit No. 963 off 1983 in order to first exhaust statutory remedy under the law. 9. Second revision application filed under Section 211 was decided by respondent No. 1 on 21 -6-1983 which came to be decided on 7th July 1983, confirming the impugned second order of the Collector on 2-2-1983. It is under these circumstances, that the petitioner company has invoked powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing this petition. Second revision application filed under Section 211 was decided by respondent No. 1 on 21 -6-1983 which came to be decided on 7th July 1983, confirming the impugned second order of the Collector on 2-2-1983. It is under these circumstances, that the petitioner company has invoked powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner company has raised following two contentions (i) That the fixation of the annual rent in respect of the land in dispute ad measuring about 1,000 sq. yds. is exorbitant and illegal. (ii) That the area of encroachment is also not properly ascertained while fixing the annual rent. 10-11. There is no dispute about the fact that the tenure of lease has expired on 30-9-1980. Lease for running the Salt Works was for a limited period of 25 years. The assessment order fixing the price of land at Rs. 9/- per sq. mt. by the authorities below does not seem to be proper and legal as the reliance is straight way placed on the opinion of the Deputy Town Planning Officer. Such an opinion is one of the important factors. It is one of the guiding aspects but it cannot be treated and taken as the binding opinion. The authorities while determining price of land have to apply its mind thoroughly to the facts and circumstances and other relevant aspects including the opinion of the Town Planning Officer. It appears that the authorities below have accepted the opinion of the Town Planning Officer with regard to the value of the land without proper application of mind. Again fixing the annual rent in respect of disputed land, respondent No. 2-Collector has observed that the petitioner cannot be heard on the point of reduction of price of the land as the petitioner is guilty of unauthorised occupation of land for long time. Such observations about penal rent of 25% of the penal premium per month in the impugned order of respondent No. 2 are not only unreasonable but are totally illegal. When notice is issued to the party for fixation of price of the land, he has to be heard. He cannot be denied the right of hearing on the question of fixation of the price, merely because he applied for regularisation of encroachment. When notice is issued to the party for fixation of price of the land, he has to be heard. He cannot be denied the right of hearing on the question of fixation of the price, merely because he applied for regularisation of encroachment. It is settled principle of law that a party who is likely to be adversely affected or is likely to be visited with civil or dire consequence, must be given an opportunity of hearing. On one side, notice is issued to the petitioner company so as to fix the price of the land to determine penalty, assessment and annual rent and on the other side, such observations are not only unwarranted nor void but are totally perverse and illegal. 12. Respondent No. 1 has also not addressed himself while deciding revision under Section 211 to all the points raised in the revision elaborately. The respondent No. 1 has straight way relied on the opinion of the Deputy Town Planning Officer. What are the factors considered by the Deputy Town Planning Officer while fixing the price of the land at Rs. 9/- per sq. mt. and what was the material available with him while giving the opinion have not been brought on record. Therefore, blind reliance on the opinion of the Deputy Town Planning Officer is not desirable. The authority concerned has to apply its mind and consider the reasonableness and justness while taking such an important decision for fixing the amount of penalty, assessment and annual rent in respect of land for which the application for regularisation is made. 13. It must be born in mind that the disputed land is a Kharaba land and obviously it may not be useful for any purpose. This aspect does not seen to have been examined by the authorities below. The penal rent imposed at the rate of 25% of the land value is also linked with the value of land and with the rent under lease. It is not in dispute that the rent under lease is Rs. 31- per Acre per year whereas penal rent in respect of small piece of land is on the basis of land value at Rs. 9/- per sq. mt. Rent under lease in Rs. 3/- per Acre per year, whereas penal rent as per impugned order would come to Rs. 31- per Acre per year whereas penal rent in respect of small piece of land is on the basis of land value at Rs. 9/- per sq. mt. Rent under lease in Rs. 3/- per Acre per year, whereas penal rent as per impugned order would come to Rs. 20,349-50 Paise per Acre per year, whereas the rent under lease fixed of course in 1955 was Rs. 3/- per Acre per year. In order to justify such a big jum from Rs. 3/- to Rs. 10,896-50 Ps. per Acre per year, there must be some basis and there must be reasonable, rational and just basis which is lacking in the impugned order. 14. Not only that the penal interest is sought to be recovered from the petitioner company from the date of lease at the said rate of Rs. 10,896-50 Ps. per Acre per year. No doubt penal rent can be levied but for levying such a rent, there must be some rational and reasonable basis. As per impugned orders of respondent No. 2, rent is sought to be recovered at the rate of Rs. 10,896-50 Ps. per Acre per year from 1955 till 1980. This also cannot be justified. There must be some acceptable logic and reliable basis for fixing the penal rent. On plain perusal of the impugned order, no such base is found. There is also dispute about the area of encroachment for which regularisation was sought. According to the petitioner, the area of encroachment is in terms of square yards, viz. 1033 sq. yds. or 855.33 sq. mts. The impugned order shows that the penal rent is charged for 1023 sq. yds. This dispute is also required to be examined, the calculation made in the Demand Notice does not conform to the proper conversion of the disputed land for regularisation. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no hesitation in finding that the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 2-Collector and confirmed by respondent No. 1 in revision is without proper application of mind and illegal and therefore, the matter is required to be remitted back to respondent No. 2 for deciding the matter afresh on merits after hearing all the concerned parties and considering the observations made herein above as early as possible. Accordingly this matter is remanded back to respondent No. 2-Collector for expeditious disposal of the matter on merits in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Order accordingly.