JUDGMENT : Bela M. Trivedi, J. The petitioners by way of the present petition have challenged the legality of the impugned order dated 22.3.2000 passed by the respondent No.1 SSRD in the Revision Application filed under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code"), and also the order dated 11.1.1994 passed by the respondent No.2 District Collector directing to take the possession of the Plot in question bearing No.106 situated at the industrial area, Una, along with the superstructure made thereon and to recover the amount of premium as the arrears of land revenue. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:- 2.1. One Ranchhodbhai Keshavjibhai was granted the plot bearing No.44 from industrial area, Una admeasuring about 1000 sq. yards by the Collector, Junagadh, for running an ice factory, at the market rate as per the order dated 20.1.1973 (Annexure-A) on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Thereafter the Collector, Junagadh had issued a corrigendum allotting the plot No.106 admeasuring about 1205 sq. yards instead of plot No.44, as per the order dated 21.4.1974 (Annexure-B). As per the case of the petitioners, the said Ranchhodbhai was running the ice factory in the name and style of Jalaram Ice Factory and he had also obtained loan from GSFC. 2.2. Since the said Ranchhodbhai was not in a position to repay the dues of GSFC, he sold out the said plot to one Mahendrabhai Jayantilal Kamdar, in respect of which the Collector had initiated proceedings for breach of conditions. However, the said Mahendrabhai agreed to pay the fine as determined by the Government, so as to get the said land transferred in his name, and accordingly the Collector vide the order dated 12.5.1977 (Annexure-C) granted the said land to Mahendrabhai after imposing the penalty of Rs.300/- and further imposing the conditions to the effect that he had to use the said plot for the same purpose for which Shri Ranchhodbhai was allotted. It is further case of the petitioners that the said Mahendrabhai formed a partnership firm with respondents No.3 to 7 and the said land was transferred to the said partnership firm, and thereafter the said Mahendrabhai withdrew himself from the said firm. Thereafter, the name of the ice factory was changed from Jalaram to Dolat Ice Factory. 2.3. It is further case of the petitioners that the said Mahendrabhai formed a partnership firm with respondents No.3 to 7 and the said land was transferred to the said partnership firm, and thereafter the said Mahendrabhai withdrew himself from the said firm. Thereafter, the name of the ice factory was changed from Jalaram to Dolat Ice Factory. 2.3. According to the petitioners, the partners of the said firm were not in a position to run the ice factory, and therefore, the partners of the said firm agreed to sell the said land in question along with the construction thereon and the machineries lying therein to the petitioners by executing a registered agreement to sell on 8.8.1984 (Annexure-D). Thereafter on 9.11.1993 the respondent No.2 Collector issued a notice to the petitioners, calling upon them to show cause as to why action for breach of conditions with regard to transfer of land should not be taken against them and as to why penalty at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq. yard of N.A. Assessment should not be levied or the land be confiscated and be returned to the Government. The petitioners submitted reply to the said notice stating inter alia that the petitioners had approached the Collector, seeking permission to purchase the land in question; that the petitioners had entered into an agreement to sell only and there was no sale deed executed in their favour and that the petitioners were also running the ice factory, in which about 15 to 20 labourers were working. The petitioners, therefore, had requested to grant the permission to transfer the land in their names. It appears that in the said proceedings the statement of the petitioner No.1 was also recorded on 28.6.1994 as per Annexure-G. 2.4. However, the respondent No.2 Collector thereafter passed the order on 11.11.1994 directing to recover the premium from the petitioners and to take over the possession of the land in question along with the construction thereon for committing breach of conditions (Annexure-H). The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order had preferred the Revision Application before the respondent No.1, who vide the order dated 22.3.2000 (Annexure-J) dismissed the said Revision Application. Hence the present petition has been filed. 3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order had preferred the Revision Application before the respondent No.1, who vide the order dated 22.3.2000 (Annexure-J) dismissed the said Revision Application. Hence the present petition has been filed. 3. The petition has been resisted by the respondents by filing the reply contending inter alia that there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Court should not interfere with the same. It is further contended that the plot in question was transferred in favour of the petitioners, without obtaining any permission from the Collector as required under the said Act, and thereby the original owner had committed breach of the conditions. 4. The learned Counsel Mr. Amar Mithani for the petitioners, taking the Court to the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities, and to the original order of grant issued in favour of the grantee Ranchhodbhai Keshavjibhai, submitted that there was no breach of any of the conditions as alleged. According to him, the respondent Collector had not put any condition against transfer or sale of the plot and, therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Collector on the ground that there was breach of the conditions were unwarranted. Relying upon the Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1947 and 7.8.1956 referred to in the order of grant dated 20.1.1973, he submitted that the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1947 was not applicable to the facts of the present case as the same was in respect of the allotment of unoccupied unalienated land for non-agricultural purposes, and the Government Resolution dated 7.8.1956 was applicable, however, there was no breach of the conditions committed by the original grantee or subsequent transferee of the land in question. Mr. Mithani has also relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court to submit that the respondent Collector should not have imposed the penalty when there was no breach of any of the conditions of grant and that the respondent Collector should have fixed the price, which was just and fair for the allotment of the land. 5. The learned AGP Ms. Bhatt, however, submitted that the original grantee and the subsequent transferee of the plot in question had committed breach of conditions as contained in the order dated 20.1.1973 as also contained in the Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1947 and 7.8.1956. 5. The learned AGP Ms. Bhatt, however, submitted that the original grantee and the subsequent transferee of the plot in question had committed breach of conditions as contained in the order dated 20.1.1973 as also contained in the Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1947 and 7.8.1956. She submitted that the land in question could not have been transferred to the petitioners without the prior permission of the Collector and, therefore, the Collector had rightly initiated the action against the petitioners, who were in possession of the plot in question without any authority of law. 6. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the original grantee Ranchhodbhai Keshavjibhai was granted the plot bearing No.44 paiki situated in the industrial area, Una vide the order dated 20.1.1973 for running the ice factory, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order, as also the terms and conditions mentioned in the Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1947 and 7.8.1956. It is also not disputed that the said grantee had transferred the said land to Mahendrabhai Jayantilal Kamdar, without obtaining any permission from the Collector, for which an order was passed by the Collector on 12.5.1977 imposing penalty on the said Mahendrabhai. The said Mahendrabhai thereafter was permitted to run the ice factory, on the same terms and conditions, on which Ranchhodbhai was granted, however, the said Mahendrabhai, without obtaining any permission or without informing the respondent Collector, entered into a partnership with the respondent Nos.3 to 7 and thereafter, he withdrew himself from the said firm. The name of the said firm was also changed from Jalaram Ice Factory to Dolat Ice Factory. It is also not disputed that thereafter the said partners of the said firm entered into an agreement to sell the said plot to the petitioners on 8.8.1984 and also handed over possession of the same to the petitioners. The respondent Collector therefore had initiated action against the petitioners for committing breach of the conditions of grant. Though it is true that there was no sale deed executed and only an agreement to sell was executed in favour of the petitioners and, therefore, no right, title or interest as such was legally created in favour of the petitioners in respect of the plot in question, nonetheless the petitioners were found to be in possession and were running the ice factory without any permission from the Collector. 7. 7. As regards the contention raised by the learned Counsel Mr. Mithani that there was no breach of any of the conditions of grant, it would be appropriate to mention that the plot in question was granted to the original grantee Ranchhodbhai on the conditions mentioned in the schedule annexed to the order dated 20.1.1973, as also the conditions mentioned in the G. R. dated 17.10.1947 and 7.8.1956. The said two Government Resolutions have been placed on record during the course of the arguments by the learned Counsels for the parties. On the perusal of the G.R. dated 17.10.1947, it appears that it was in respect of the grantee or lessee of the Government land or occupants of un-alienated land. It inter alia provided that in case of sales, leases and permissions of unoccupied unalienated lands for non-agricultural purposes, the purchaser had to use the land for the purpose, for which it was granted and the grantee could not transfer or encumber the land, in any manner whatsoever, without the prior approval of the Government. The grantee was also required to give undertaking as mentioned therein. The said G.R. dated 17.10.1947 was modified by the G.R. dated 7.8.1956, whereby the Government had directed inter alia that the Government land should be granted to industrial or commercial concerns on alienable tenure, subject to the conditions mentioned therein in addition to the other usual conditions. 8. According to Mr. Mithani, the conditions mentioned in the G.R. dated 7.8.1956 were mentioned in the original order of grant made in favour of the grantee Ranchhodbhai and in the said order, there was no condition put to the effect that the grantee could not sell or transfer the plot in question. The Court does not find any substance in the said submission. When the said order of grant dated 20.1.1973 had stated that the said grant of land was subject to the conditions mentioned in the G.R. dated 17.10.1947 and 7.8.1956, the conditions mentioned in both the Government Resolutions were applicable to the land in question. The Government Resolution dated 17.10.1947 provided that the unoccupied, un-alienated land for nonagricultural purposes could not be transferred or encumbered without prior approval of the Government. The Government Resolution dated 17.10.1947 provided that the unoccupied, un-alienated land for nonagricultural purposes could not be transferred or encumbered without prior approval of the Government. The purchaser was also required to give an undertaking to the effect that if he committed any contravention of the conditions mentioned in the said G.R., the Collector would be entitled to impose penalty and to remove the structure erected on such land. Though the said G.R. dated 17.10.1947 was modified by the G.R. dated 7.8.1956, there is nothing to suggest that the said conditions mentioned in the G.R. dated 17.10.1947 were deleted. On the contrary, it appears that certain other conditions were incorporated in addition to the other usual conditions in respect of the Government lands granted to industrial or commercial concerns, if the same was on an alienable tenure. The G.R. dated 7.8.1956 did not supersede the G.R. dated 17.10.1947. It only modified the G. R. dated 17.10.1947. In that view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the Government land, which was granted to the original grantee Ranchhodbhai for running the ice factory subject to the conditions mentioned therein required that the said grantee had to obtain necessary permission from the Collector before transferring or selling the land in question to a third party. That was the reason the transferee Mahendrabhai had agreed to pay fine. It is true that the transfer made by the said Ranchhodbhai in favour of the Mahendrabhai was regularized by the Collector by imposing penalty and thereafter Mahendrabhai was permitted to run the ice factory in the name of Jalaram Ice Factory on the same terms and conditions as imposed on Shri Ranchhodbhai, however the said Mahendrabhai could not have further transferred the plot in question to the partnership firm run in the name and style of Dolat ice factory and withdrawn himself from the said firm. The said partners of the said firm also could not have transferred the plot in question in favour of the petitioners by executing an agreement to sell, without informing or obtaining permission from the respondent Collector. 9. There being clear breach of conditions committed by the said Mahendrabhai and also by the respondent Nos.3 to 7, as also by the petitioners, the respondent Collector had rightly initiated action against the petitioners, who were found to be in possession of the plot in question. 9. There being clear breach of conditions committed by the said Mahendrabhai and also by the respondent Nos.3 to 7, as also by the petitioners, the respondent Collector had rightly initiated action against the petitioners, who were found to be in possession of the plot in question. Neither the said Mahendrabhai nor his partners had bothered to challenge the order of the Collector before the SSRD. They have also not bothered to appear in the present petition. The Court therefore is of the opinion that the order passed by the Collector was rightly confirmed by the respondent SSRD considering the evidence on record. The said orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being just and proper and there being no jurisdictional error pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders, while exercising limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 11. The request made by Mr. Mithani to continue the interim relief for some weeks to enable the petitioners to approach the higher forum is also rejected.