JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---This petition arises from the order dated 5th June, 1997 passed by the Administrative Tribunal dismissing Land Revenue Appeal No. 20/96 filed by the petitioner against order dated 4th March, 1996 of Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional Officer of Ponda in Case No. 7/28/88-ILL-CONV whereby the Sub Divisional Officer had directed removal of the structure constructed by the petitioner and for recovery of expenditure for such removal from the petitioner as arrears of Land Revenue, on the ground that the petitioner had illegally used the land admeasuring 82 sq. metres from the property bearing Survey No. 50 situated in the village of Cundaim for non-agricultural purposes. 2.Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the order dated 4th March, 1996 of the Sub Divisional Officer was passed solely on the basis of the report of the Mamlatdar prepared by the concerned Mamlatdar on the inspection of the site to the effect that the petitioner had illegally converted an area of 32 sq. metres of the said property for the purpose of non-agricultural use. There was neither any enquiry held by the concerned authority nor any evidence to the effect that the land in question was used for agricultural purposes prior to the alleged conversion of the same for non-agricultural purpose was available before the authority. It has already been held by this Court that there is no presumption that all the land in Goa is non-agricultural land and, therefore, before arriving at any finding that the petitioner had converted the land for the purpose of non-agricultural use, it was absolutely necessary for the concerned authority to find out as to what was the actual use that the land was originally put to particularly prior to the alleged conversion of the land by the petitioner. In the absence of any material in that regard, there was no occasion for the authority to hold that the petitioner had converted the land in question for non-agricultural purposes. The entire proceedings having been proceeded on the presumption that there has been change in user of the land without there being any material in support thereto, it is apparent that the authorities have acted arbitrarily and in improper exercise of their jurisdiction while imposing the penalty of demolition of structure constructed by the petitioner in the said area. The entire proceedings having been proceeded on the presumption that there has been change in user of the land without there being any material in support thereto, it is apparent that the authorities have acted arbitrarily and in improper exercise of their jurisdiction while imposing the penalty of demolition of structure constructed by the petitioner in the said area. On this ground alone, the order of the Sub Divisional Officer as well as that of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. Moreover, the matter does not end there and considering the fact that the allegations are of violation of the provisions of section 32 of the Land Revenue Code, it is necessary to remand the matter to the concerned authority i.e. the Deputy Collector and the Sub Divisional Officer of Ponda to hold the enquiry afresh in the matter of alleged violation of the provisions of Land Revenue Code and, therefore, at first to ascertain whether the land in question was originally used for agricultural purposes or not and then to find out whether there has been change of user of the land on account of the construction of the structure by the petitioner and only thereupon to decide whether the petitioner is liable to pay the penalty under the provisions of Land Revenue Code. 3.In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds. The impugned order as well as the order dated 4th March, 1996 passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional Officer are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the said authority i.e. the Deputy Collector, Ponda, for fresh enquiry in the matter. The authorities to bear in mind the above observations while deciding the matter. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Petition succeed. *****