JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. A. D. Oza, learned G. P. appears for all respondent Authorities and waives service of rule. With the consent of the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) THE short facts are that the father of the petitioner - deceased Shri Sidibhai Badhabhai was granted land admeasuring 5 acres and 20 gunthas as new tenure land vide order dated 30. 4. 1968. It appears that the proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner mainly on two grounds, one was that the land was not cultivated for the whole period and the second was that one Natha Beejal was allowed for cultivation of the land. It appears that the Dy. Collector, as per the order dated 30. 12. 1997 found that the land was allotted to be cultivated by Koli Natha Beejal and, therefore, there is a breach of the condition and it was also found by him that the portion of the land admeasuring 2 acres 36 gunthas has remained as un-used. Therefore, ultimately as per the order dated 30. 12. 1997 the order for grant of the land was cancelled and the land was ordered to be forfeited by the State Government. It appears that the matter was carried before the Collector in appeal and the District Collector as per the order dated 30. 4. 2003 confirmed the order passed by the Dy. Collector and dismissed the appeal. It also appears that the petitioner carried the matter before the State Government in revision and the revision also came to be dismissed on 31. 5. 2005, whereby the order of the Dy. Collector as well as the Collector are confirmed and it is under these circumstances the petitioners have approached this Court by preferring the present petitions. ( 3 ) UPON hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the points which arise for consideration in these petition are covered by the decision of this Court in case of "kodaji Maganji vs. State of Gujarat" dated 21. 9. 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 3802/2004 and others as well as in case of "k. M. Adhvaryu vs. State of Gujarat" dated 30. 11. 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 17988/2003. 9. 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 3802/2004 and others as well as in case of "k. M. Adhvaryu vs. State of Gujarat" dated 30. 11. 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 17988/2003. ( 4 ) SO far as the first ground for cultivating the land fully and allowing the land to remain un-utilised are concerned, it may be recorded that in the above referred decision of this Court in case of "kodajai Maganji" (supra) at para 6, it is inter alia observed as under: "6. Even if the matter is considered on the substance of the subject matter also, the net effect would be that as there was cultivation shown in the revenue record of village Form 7/12 of the land in question, the Prant Officer proceeded on the basis that the land is transferred in breach of conditions since it was a new tenure land, and therefore, the land is ordered to be forfeited. Merely because the show cause notice has been issued and the owner of the land could not represent the case would not be a sufficient ground to hold that the land is transferred to a third party, may be for cultivation. It is well settled that the village Form 7/12 or revenue record is relevant only for fiscal purposes and merely mutation or other aspect of cultivation is recorded in revenue record, no right which otherwise exists in accordance with law gets altered qua the property in question. If there is any authenticated record in the village panchayat or with Talati-cum-Mantri showing those rights are created by the transfer by the holder of the land in favour of some other party it may stand on different footing. It appears that there was no record available for altering the rights, possession and/or ownership of the land in question before the Prant Officer. In the absence of such record, the Prant Officer could not have come to conclusion that the land is transferred in breach of conditions. (emphasis supplied ). As regards the orders of the State Govt in revision are concerned, it has proceeded on the basis as if the burden is upon the owner of the land to show that he has not transferred. (emphasis supplied ). As regards the orders of the State Govt in revision are concerned, it has proceeded on the basis as if the burden is upon the owner of the land to show that he has not transferred. When a statement is made or it is the case of the petitioner that the land is not transferred and is in possession and ownership of the petitioner, it will be for the authority to consider if there is any authenticated record available for transfer. In the absence of any lawful document for transferring or creating lawful right in the property in question, it could not be even concluded that the property is transferred in breach of conditions. It may be recorded that the person who is alleged to have transferred the land namely Vardhabhai is represented through respondent Nos 4 and 5, Legal representatives of deceased Vadhabhai Pranlal. Mr. Goswami, Ld. counsel for respondent Nos 4 and 5 also confirms the position that no transfer whatsoever has taken place. It also appears that before the State Govt in the proceedings of revision the affidavit was also filed for such purpose. Further, it appears that the orders are passed by the Prant Officer simply on the basis of noting in Village Form No. 7/12 of the land in question showing that the cultivation is by other person and not by petitioner and therefore the land is ordered to be forfeited to State. When it is a matter pertaining to taking away the property of any citizen mere reliance upon revenue record of village Form No. 7/12 can not be said as sufficient proof for breach of condition. As such, when such aspect is denied by the holder of the property, it must be examined as to whether concerned Talati-cum-Mantri made such entry on the basis of hearsay or on the basis of so called material which can not be relied upon or on some extraneous consideration and, if yes, then such entry in village Form No. 7/12 can not assume value authorising for concluding the breach and consequential forfeiture of the property. (emphasis supplied ). There must be cogent, authenticated and lawful material for altering the rights in immovable properties for such breach. (emphasis supplied ). There must be cogent, authenticated and lawful material for altering the rights in immovable properties for such breach. Moreover, even if it is established that there is a breach, and if the authority is to take action of forfeiture, then it should also be examined as to whether the breach was due to circumstances beyond the control of the holder of the property and, if yes, then in that case, harsh action of forfeiture of the property would not be required but the authority will have to consider the matter for imposition of forfeiture considering the gravity of the breach, including the period for such breach. If it is a matter resulting into action of forfeiture of land, then principles of natural justice to its full extent considering the facts and circumstances of the case will be required to be followed. (emphasis supplied) Therefore, only entry in village Form No. 7/12 can not be said as sufficient material attracting the power of authority for forfeiture of the land to the State Government. It appears that neither the Dy. District Collector, nor the Collector or the State Government have examined the matter on the aspects as to whether there were any circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners in not cultivating the land in question and as to whether other penalty could be said to be sufficient considering the breach, if any. ( 5 ) THE another aspect on the basis of which the impugned orders have been passed is that for some time a portion of the land was allowed to be cultivated through one Koli Natha Beejalbhai. It may be recorded that in the decision of this Court in "k. M. Adhvaryu v. State of Gujarat" (supra) at para 8 it was observed as under:"8. IN this regard, merely because the land is given for agricultural purpose to an Ex-army man as back as in the year 1966, it cannot be said that it is obligatory on the part of the concerned holder of the land to himself cultivate and he cannot engage any agricultural labourer or he cannot take assistance of anybody for the purpose of agricultural cultivation. If the said interpretation is made to the condition for cultivation, it would result into absurd situation. If the said interpretation is made to the condition for cultivation, it would result into absurd situation. With the development of science it is always open to agriculturist to cultivate the land either by himself or through the person who are experts in cultivation and while doing so he can take assistance of the other agency also. In any event, the engagement of agricultural labourer was not prohibited even during the earlier days when the agriculturist had to undertake the activity of agriculture. With the advancement of science it is always not necessary for the agriculturist to cultivate through manual labour or bullock cart but he can get it cultivated through tractor or other scientific instrument, either himself or through labourers or through any agency which can be said as expert in undertaking such agricultural operations with a view to exploit maximum crop/income by the utilisation of the land for agricultural purpose. Under such circumstances, the aspect which may be required to be considered is as to whether such has been done at the instance of holder of the land and whether the holder of land can be said as principally responsible and whether holder of the land is finally to get the income or not. If the answer of the aforesaid is in affirmation, it cannot be said that the holder of the land has not cultivated or used the land for agriculture for himself or family members. In any case, there cannot be exhaustive list for the method or manner of such agricultural activities and thereby to earn more or to get maximum yield from the agricultural land and any attempt or activity in this regard by holder of the land cannot be said as breach of condition warranting forfeiture of land. I find it proper to leave the matter at that stage, without further examining the said aspects, more particularly because it has come on record by way of affidavit that the person who was engaged by the petitioner was engaged as agricultural labourer for cultivating the agricultural land. Therefore, I find that the conclusion arrived at by the District Collector that the land is not utilised for agricultural purpose by the petitioner is without properly considering the relevant aspects and there is jurisdictional error committed. Therefore, I find that the conclusion arrived at by the District Collector that the land is not utilised for agricultural purpose by the petitioner is without properly considering the relevant aspects and there is jurisdictional error committed. The aforesaid is coupled with the aspect that the agricultural cultivation through other person had transpired in the statement of Talati-cum-Mantri, for which no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before taking final decision of forfeiting the land in question. " ( 6 ) IN the said case also, it was ultimately found by the Court that merely because the land was cultivated through some other person cannot be said to be the only ground for coming to the conclusion that the land is transferred. Further, it was also observed that with the development of the science it is always open to the agriculturists to cultivate through tractor or other scientific instrument, either himself or through labourers or through any agency with a view to exploit maximum crop/income by the utilisation of the land for agricultural purpose. It was recorded that the engagement of the agricultural labourer was not prohibited during the earlier days when the agriculturists had to undertake activities of agriculture. It was further observed that with the advancement of science it is always not necessary for the agriculturist to cultivate through manual labour or bullock cart but he can get it cultivated through tractor or other scientific instrument, either himself or through labourers or through any agency which can be said as expert in undertaking such agricultural operations with a view to exploit maximum crop/income by the utilisation of the land for agricultural purpose. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, merely because the cultivation is made through another person cannot be said to be sufficient ground to conclude that the land is transferred to Natha Beejal, more particularly when there was no authenticated record available for transfer of the property as per the provisions of Transfer of Properties Act or otherwise. ( 8 ) IT appears that neither the Dy. Collector nor the Collector in appeal, nor the State Government in revision have considered the aforesaid aspect and, therefore, the impugned orders passed by all the authorities throughout cannot be sustained in the eye of law. ( 8 ) IT appears that neither the Dy. Collector nor the Collector in appeal, nor the State Government in revision have considered the aforesaid aspect and, therefore, the impugned orders passed by all the authorities throughout cannot be sustained in the eye of law. ( 9 ) THE learned AGP submitted that as stated in the revenue record the entry is already mutated based on the order of the Dy. Collector and, therefore, though actual possession is of the petitioners, but such possession can be said unauthorised. When the order is found to be not in conformity of the law laid down by this Court, the orders deserve to be set aside, but it may be clarified that the status-quo qua the land in question shall be maintained. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion the impugned orders passed by the Dy. Collector and its confirmation by the Collector in appeal and the State Government in revision are quashed and set aside with the further direction that the matters shall stand restored to the file of the Dy. Collector and the Dy. Collector shall reexamine the matter in light of the observations made hereinabove and in accordance with law and shall pass appropriate orders as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this Court. Until the final decision is rendered by the Dy. Collector, status-quo qua the revenue record of the possession of the land in question shall be maintained by both the sides. ( 11 ) THE petitions are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as costs. .