J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 7. 4. 1995 confirming the judgment and order of the Collector whereby the disputed land came to be forfeited, by filing this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE father of the petitioners Motibhai Khodabhai was granted land admeasuring oacre-29 gunthas known as Ramwadi by the erstwhile Wadhwan State by virtue of a Lekh dated 28. 11. 1938 for the purpose of growing flowers, trees etc. on payment of Rs. 6/- per year on certain conditions (disputed land for short ). In an inquiry by the Collector, it was revealed that no flowers or trees were planted and the disputed land was lying waste. Thus, action was initiated for breach of condition. The respondent- Collector conducted the inquiry and by his order dated 24. 3. 1988 it came to be held that there was violation of the conditions to the effect that land is lying waste and the petitioners have not made any attempt for growing or rearing flower trees. Thus, the grant came to be revoked. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the Collector, the petitioners had preferred appeal before the GRT under Sec. 9 (1) of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act. The appeal came to be dismissed confirming the order of the Collector of forfeiture of the disputed land, by passing an order on 7. 4. 1995. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioners has been that on account of scarcity of water, the land could not be put to use for growing flowers and planting trees. The well has also dried up. There is no water facility, there is no sufficient water, as contended by the petitioners. The contentions raised by the petitioners before the authorities below are not accepted. ( 5 ) IT appears from the perusal of the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal did not consider the contention that notification of the erstwhile Saurashtra Government must be examined as it is relevant and material to decide the right of the petitioners. The contentions raised by the petitioners before the authorities below are not accepted. ( 5 ) IT appears from the perusal of the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal did not consider the contention that notification of the erstwhile Saurashtra Government must be examined as it is relevant and material to decide the right of the petitioners. According to the contention of the petitioner, occupancy rights under the said notification of the erstwhile Saurashtra Government are conferred upon all the tenants who were holding land on such tenure as that of the petitioners predecessor was holding. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioners have become the occupants and there was no question of any restriction on their land. Unfortunately, a copy of the notification was not produced. Therefore, the Tribunal has not accepted the contention that the petitioners have got occupancy rights in respect of the disputed land. A copy of the said notification is produced in this petition which ought to have been produced before the tribunal. The Tribunal could not appreciate the contention in this behalf raised by the petitioners in absence of the copy of the notification. However, since a copy of the notification is placed on record, it is required to be examined. It is rightly contended on behalf of the petitioners that the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in light of the copy of the said notification. ( 6 ) GOVERNMENT of Gujarat through its Revenue Department had passed resolution No. RD/11/4 (a)4 (l)6151 on 1. 3. 1950 in connection with occupancy rights to the holders of khalsa land. Proclamation dated 15. 4. 1948 published by the Government of Saurashtra at the time of its inauguration and the Collectors report in connection with conferring occupancy rights upon the holders of lands of Khalsa villages, was under consideration and thereafter the said resolution came to be issued. In fact, it is not a notification but a resolution dated 1. 3. 1950. ( 7 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the Tribunal had no benefit of examining and appreciating the merits of this contention in light of the aforesaid resolution. Whether it is relevant, whether it is applicable and what is its effect etc. are the questions which are required to be examined and decision by the Tribunal. 3. 1950. ( 7 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the Tribunal had no benefit of examining and appreciating the merits of this contention in light of the aforesaid resolution. Whether it is relevant, whether it is applicable and what is its effect etc. are the questions which are required to be examined and decision by the Tribunal. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the tribunal for fresh consideration, after quashing and setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. ( 8 ) THE Tribunal is directed to rehear the appeal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties as early as possible and preferably on or before the end of October 1996. Obviously, in the meantime, status-quo as on today with regard to possession will be observed by both the parties. The petitioners are directed to produce a copy c/f the aforesaid resolution before the Tribunal on or before the hearing. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. .