JUDGMENT - D.R. DHANUKA, J.:---By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned order dated. 8th September, 1983 passed by the delegate of the Administrator exercising Appellate and Revisional powers of the Administrator under the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Reforms Regulations in Revision Application No. 1 of 1983 and also order dated 31st day of December 1982 passed by the Dy. Collector (L.R.) Silvassa in Appeal No. 13 of 1976. By the impugned order dated 8th September, 1983, the revisional authority held that the revision application preferred by the applicants was not competent in law in view of amendment to section 46 of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Reforms Regulations. We propose to examine the challenge made to the Appellate order dated 31st December, 1982 passed by the Dy. Collector in the above referred appeal. 2. For the reasons indicated below the petition is dismissed. 3. It must be stated at the outset that the respondents have already taken possession of land in dispute and distributed the same amongst large number of landless agricultural labourers as permissible under the above referred regulations. 4. The petitioner No. 1 is the widow of one Shantilal Premchand Shah. At the material time, Shri Shantilal Premchad Shah and Shri Vinodchandra Maneklal Shah were holders of the petition land situate at village Galonda. 5. By the impugned order dated 31-12-1982 passed in Appeal No. 13 of 1976, the Dy. Collector (L.R.) Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa directed that the entire holding of Shantilal Premchand as well as Vinodchandra Maneklal admeasuring hectares 35.6 be forfeited to the Government on the ground that the holders thereof were not personally cultivating the same as required by the regulations. On 12-5-1992, the prescribed authority took possession of the entire land in lawful execution of the orders passed herein. Soon thereafter in the month of May 1992, the land in dispute was distributed by the administrator amongst the landless agricultural labourers in accordance with the existing provisions of Dadra Nagar Haveli Land Reforms Regulation, 1971. 6. Before we set out the relevant facts having bearing on the subject matter of this petition, and before we refer to the submissions made by the learned Counsel at the bar, it is necessary to refer to and summarise the relevant provisions of Dadra Nagar Haveli Reforms Regulations 1971 i.e. Regulation No. 3 of 1971. 7. 6. Before we set out the relevant facts having bearing on the subject matter of this petition, and before we refer to the submissions made by the learned Counsel at the bar, it is necessary to refer to and summarise the relevant provisions of Dadra Nagar Haveli Reforms Regulations 1971 i.e. Regulation No. 3 of 1971. 7. In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 240 of the Constitution of India, the President of India promulgated the said regulation to abolish Alwara and Terem tenures and to confer occupancy rights on Alwara terem holders and their tenants, to impose a ceiling on possession of agricultural lands, to provide for acquisition and distribution of land held in excess of such ceiling and to regulate the relation of landlords and tenants, in the Union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(6) of the Regulation defined the expression agriculturist to mean a person who cultivated the land personally. Section 2(3) of the regulation defined the expression agricultural land. Section 2(22) of the regulation defined the expression Personal cultivation as under : "(22) `Personal cultivation with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means cultivation by a person on his own account - (i) by his own labour, or (ii) by the labour of any member of his family, or (iii) by servants or by hired labour on wages, payable in cash or in kind (but not as a share of the produce) under the personal supervision of himself or of any member of his family. Explanation 1 : Land shall not the deemed to be cultivated under the personal supervision of a person or a member of his family unless such a person or member resides, during the major part of the agricultural season, in the village in which the land or the major part thereof is situated or in a place situated within the distance of not more than eight kilometres from such village. Explanation 2 : In the case of a person under disability, spervision by a paid employee on behalf of such person shall be deemed to be personal supervision. Explanation 3 : For the purpose of this clause, member of a family means father, mother, spouse, brother, son, grandson or dependent sister or daughter and in the case of a Hindu undivided family, a member thereof and also a divorced and dependent daughter. Explanation 3 : For the purpose of this clause, member of a family means father, mother, spouse, brother, son, grandson or dependent sister or daughter and in the case of a Hindu undivided family, a member thereof and also a divorced and dependent daughter. In this case, Explanation I appended to section 2(22) of the Regulation is directly attracted. By section 3 of the said Regulation, it was provided that with effect from the vesting date, all concessions granted in respect of any land held under the Alwara and terem shall stand extinguished and all such lands shall vest in the Government free from all encumberances and subject to the rights if any, granted in respect thereof by the prescribed authorities under chapter II of the said Regulation. Section 3 of the said Regulation became operative from the vesting date. The Court is informed by the learned Counsel on both sides that the vesting date fixed by the Administrator in this behalf was 1-5-1974. Section 4(1)(a) of the said Regulation provided that on and from the vesting date, occupancy rights in respect of any land including grass land not capable of being used for the purpose of agriculture which has not been put to agricultural use by an Alwara-holder or a terem holder shall be deemed to have been granted to the Alwara-holder or a terem holder in terms of the said regulations as set out therein. This provision is not relevant for our purpose. Section 4(1)(b) of the said Regulation provided that any grass land capable of being used for the purpose of agriculture which vested in the Government under section 3 of the Regulation and which was in possession of an Alwara-holder or a terem holder on the vesting date, shall be deemed to have been granted to the Alwara-holder or the terem holder subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2) of the regulation. Sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Regulation provided that the grass land the extent of which was in excess of ¼th of the extent of agricultural land possessed by the Alwara-holder or the terem holder or the tenant as the case may be on the vesting date, shall be brought under cultivation within a period of two years from the vesting date. Section 4(1)(c) of the said Regulation provided that any other land which vested in the Government under section 3 of the Regulation and which on the vesting date was under the personal cultivation of an Alwara-holder or a terem-holder or a tenant shall subject to the provisions of the said Regulation be deemed to have been granted to the Alwara-holder or the terem-holder or the tenant as the case may be as more particularly set out therein. Section 4(2)(c) of the said Regulation provided that on failure of the holder to comply with the provisions of Clause (b) of sub-clause (2) of section 4 of the Regulation, the occupancy rights in respect of the grass land which remained uncultivated and which was in excess of the grass land which could be possessed as such, under Clause (a) of the said Regulation shall on the expirty of a period of 2 years, of the vesting date shall stand forfeited to the Government free from all encumberances and the provisions of sections 5, 21 and 22 thereof shall apply to such land. 8. Section 21 of the Regulation provided for filing of necessary statement by holder of the land soon after publication of public notice by the prescribed authority in this behalf. Section 22 of the Regulation provided for holding of necessary inquiry by the prescribed authority as set out therein. Chapter VI of the said Regulation provided for distribution of surplus land vested in the Government. Section 44 of the said Regulation provided for filing of an appeal to the Collector against the order of the prescribed authority made under any of the provisions of the said Regulation. Section 46 of the Regulation provided for exercise of revisional powers of the Administrator in the situation where no appeal was filed. 9. Shri Shantilal Premchand Shah the husband of petitioner No. 1 and Shri Vinodchandra Mohanlal Shah, the petitioner No. 2 herein filed the necessary statement with the prescribed authority as the holders of the land in pursuance of a public notice published by the prescribed authorities under the regulation. Thereafter an inquiry was held by the prescribed authorities as contemplated under section 22 of the Regulation. 10. On 6-10-1975, the Land Reforms Officer No. II Dadra Nagar Haveli passed an order in Case No. 62/1974. The said order pertained to petition land of village Galonda. Thereafter an inquiry was held by the prescribed authorities as contemplated under section 22 of the Regulation. 10. On 6-10-1975, the Land Reforms Officer No. II Dadra Nagar Haveli passed an order in Case No. 62/1974. The said order pertained to petition land of village Galonda. By the said order, it was decided that 28.85 hectares shall be deemed to have been granted to the petitioners as occupants. The rest of the petition land was directed to be forfeited in favour of the Government. The said order pertained also to grass land capable of being used for the purpose of agricultural use. The said order was passed under the provisions of sub-clause (b) as well as sub-clause (c) of section 4(1) of the said Regulation. By this time, two years period from the vesting date had not expired. Thus the holders of the land had a chance to save the grass lands from being forfeited by bringing the same order in actual cultivation within a period of two years from vesting date. On 1-10-76, a further order was passed by the Land Reforms Officer No. 2 to the effect that the grass land to the extent of 1.78 hectares was also liable to be forfeited to the Government in view of such land having not been brought under cultivation. Both these orders are of no significance and appear to be erroneous in view of the finding of the fact recorded by the appellate authority in order dated 31st December, 1982. We shall make a reference to the appellate order of the Dy. Collector being order dated. 31st December, 1982 little later. 11. Being aggrieved by order dated 6-10-75, the Circle Officer, Silvassa filed an appeal before the Court of District Collector, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa. The said appeal was numbered as Appeal No. 13 of 1976. By an order, dated 22-12-77, passed by the Dy. Collector in Appeal No. 13 of 1976, it was held that Shantilal Premchand and Vinodchandra Mohanlal had not cultivated any of the lands personally and no occupancy rights could be granted in favour of the said holders under above referred regulation. By an order, dated 22-12-77, passed by the Dy. Collector in Appeal No. 13 of 1976, it was held that Shantilal Premchand and Vinodchandra Mohanlal had not cultivated any of the lands personally and no occupancy rights could be granted in favour of the said holders under above referred regulation. Thus in substance, it was held that the entire land held by the two holders admeasuring 35.60 hectares was liable to be forfeited in favour of the Government under the said Regulation for the purpose of eventual distribution under chapter VI of the said Regulation. 12. During the pendency of the said appeal, one of the appellant Shri Shantilal Premchand had died. No notice was issued by the authorities to the widow of Shantilal Premchand i.e. to the petitoner No. 1 therein. 13. Thereafter, Shantilal Premchand and Vinodchandra Mohanlal filed Revision Application No. 7 of 1978 inter alia making grievance to the effect that the above referred appeal was passed by the Dy. Collector without hearing the widow of Shantilal Premchand. The Revision Application No. 7 of 1978 was allowed by an order passed by the Officer exercising revisional powers of the Administrator on 18-4-79. The proceedings concerning Appeal No. 13 of 1976 were remanded back to the Dy. Collector for making a fresh decision, after a fresh hearing. 14. By an order dated 31-12-1982, the Dy. Collector decided the above referred Appeal No. 13 of 1976 on remand after giving necessary hearing to the parties. The operative part of the said order reads as under : "Appeal is allowed. Order of the Land Reforms Officer dated 6-10-75 is set aside. The entire holding of the respondents admeasuring 35.60 arca is forfeited to Government on the ground of personal curltivation as the repsondents are not staying within the radius of 8 kms. from the village where all these lands are situated and therefore not personally cultivating the same. Concerned parties be informed of this order. Sd./- Dy. Collector (L.R.) Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa. The said order was passed after taking into consideration the definition of the expression personal cultivation as set out in section 2(22) of the Regulation and Explanation I appended thereto. 15. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Revision Application No. 1 of 1983 before the delegate of the Administrator exercising revisional powers. The said order was passed after taking into consideration the definition of the expression personal cultivation as set out in section 2(22) of the Regulation and Explanation I appended thereto. 15. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Revision Application No. 1 of 1983 before the delegate of the Administrator exercising revisional powers. By an order dated 8-9-93, it was held that the said Revision application was not maintenable in law, in view of the applicability of amended section 46 of the Regulation. 16. In this situation, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1743/84 in this Court. The writ petition was admitted by the Court. Interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner. This petition was finally disposed of on an earlier occasion by an order dated 2-4-1992 passed by Division Bench of this Court consisting of Pendse and B.U. Wahane. The following order was passed by the Court :- "Mr. Limaye, the learned Counsel for the petitioner very fairly stated that the relief in this petition cannot be granted in view of previous decisions of this Court." Accordingly, rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Thus, the interim relief granted to the petitioner came to an end on 2nd April, 1992. The prescribed authority issued necessary notice for taking possession of the land forfeited in favour of the Government as set out in order dated 31st December, 1982 passed by the Dy. Collector (L.R.) Silvassa in Appeal No. 13 of 1976. In this situation, possession of the forfeited land was duly taken by the prescribed authority on 12-5-1992 in execution of the earlier order discussed above. A panchanama was duly made. On 29-5-1992, the said land admeasuring 35.60 hectares was duly distributed amongst 41 landless agricultural Labourers. The prescribed authority took possession of the above referred land in accordance with law. No stay order of the Court was then operative. The petitioner goes on contending that actual possession of the said land was not taken by the prescribed authority as stated above. We have no hesitation in rejecting this incorrect and untenable plea of the petitioners in view of convincing documentary evidence relied upon by the respondents. 17. No stay order of the Court was then operative. The petitioner goes on contending that actual possession of the said land was not taken by the prescribed authority as stated above. We have no hesitation in rejecting this incorrect and untenable plea of the petitioners in view of convincing documentary evidence relied upon by the respondents. 17. By an order dated 15-3-1993, the Honble Supreme Court remanded this writ petition to this Court for fresh hearing and further directed that status quo in respect of possession of the disputed land as on the date of order of the Court shall continue till the disposal of this writ petition, by the High Court. The status quo as prevailing on 15-3-1993 was to the effect that the land in dispute was in possession of about 43 landless agricultural labourers as a result of the distribution of land affected by the prescribed authority in terms of chapter VI of the said Regulation. 18. Civil application for amendment of the petition was filed by the petitioner at a extremely late stage seeking to implead about 40 of these landless agricultural labourers as party-respondents to this petition. By the said applications, the petitioner also sought to incorporate various other averments in the writ petition. The said civil application has been rejected, by the Court by an order passed by this Court on 29-9-1994. 19. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued this petition. In our opinion, there is no merit in this petition whatsoever. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners were in possession of the grass land and part of the grass Land was in fact cultivated and for the purpose of agriculture as can be seen from the order of the Land Reforms Officer referred to hereinabove. The learned Counsel has also submitted that the order dated 1-10-1976 passed by the Land Reforms Officer indicated that the petitioners had in fact cultivated part of the grass land. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the above referred order dated 1-10-76 has become final as no appeal was filed by the Circle Officer against the said order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further invited the Court to examine the matter beyond the pleadings. It is not possible to accept any of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further invited the Court to examine the matter beyond the pleadings. It is not possible to accept any of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. We must restrict the petitioner to then pleadings before the Court. The above referred orders of the Land Reforms Officer have now merged with the appellate order of the Dy. Collector being order dated 31-12-82. The appellate authority has clearly reached a conclusion to the effect that the petitioners had not personally cultivated the said land admeasuring hectares 35.60 or any part thereof. This finding of fact is in respect of grass land. Explanation 1 appended to section 2(22) of the regulation is clearly attracted in this case. As far as the grass land is concerned, the grass land could be forfeited in favour of the Government if the grass land which was capable of being used for the purpose of agricultural was not brought under cultivation within a period of two years from the date of vesting i.e. by 1-5-1976. It was the definite view of the Deputy Collector that neither the grass land nor any other lands was personally cultivated by the holders at the material time or any of the kind. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has impugned the above referred finding of the appellate authority in this writ petition. There is no data disclosed in the petition so as to indicate as to which land is supposed to have been personally cultivated by the petitioners or the original holders thereof at the material time or at any other time. The petition lacks particualrs and the date. The impugned order dated 31st December, 1982 does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of record. We are not pursuaded to interfere with any of the impugned orders in this writ petition. There is no justice in the case of the petitioners. The Court is invited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to examine the merits of the appellate order and we have done so. We have reached the conclusion that the appellate order dated 31-12-1982 was passed by the Dy. Collector and the same is valid. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The rule discharged. No order as to costs. Issue of certified copy expedited. Petition dismissed. *****