ORDER : 1. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the show-cause notice dated 01.03.2018 on the ground that the same is beyond jurisdiction. 2. The impugned show-cause notice dated 01.03.2018 is issued by the Mamlatdar, Ranpur asking the present petitioner to vacate the land in question. It is a case of the petitioner that in fact the land belongs to her and is in her private ownership, which she has purchased by way of a registered sale deed dated 11.01.2010. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Gandhi appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the impugned notice is without jurisdiction, the same is required to be set aside. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2016 (2) GLR 1021 . 4. The Government land bearing old Survey No.71 total admeasuring 23.36 acres and gunthas situated at Village Umrala, Taluka Dandhuka, District Botad was a waste land. It is submitted that in view of the Government Policy with regard to the parcels of the Government waste land, the petitioner made an application being a landless person. The part of such Government waste land of Survey No.71 along with Survey Nos.97, 130 and 149 of Village Umrala were allotted on permanent basis by way of new and impartible tenure in favour of 20 landless persons vide order dated 31.06.1968. 4.1 In view of the aforesaid allotment, the land bearing Survey No.71/2 admeasuring 16 acres, out of 23.26 acres and gunthas, was allotted in favour of one Rajabhai Khodabhai on permanent basis for new and impartible tenure and accordingly, a mutation Entry No.503 dated 16.03.1969 was posted in relation to the said order of allotment in favour of the said allottee. 4.2 Thereafter, the revenue record of the said parcel of the land bearing old Survey No.71/1 reveals that vide mutation Entry No.620 dated 20.09.1974, the name of the son of the original allotee Dhudabhai Rajabhai was entered in the record of rights, which was duly certified. 4.3 In view of the said policy, the said land of Survey No.71/2 was converted into old tenure subject to terms and conditions stated therein by paying the premium as specified in the order dated 10.04.2008. 4.3 In view of the said policy, the said land of Survey No.71/2 was converted into old tenure subject to terms and conditions stated therein by paying the premium as specified in the order dated 10.04.2008. The said order of conversion was entered into Village Form No.6 vide Entry No.1625 dated 11.06.2008, which was duly certified by the Circle Officer, Ranpur vide order dated 10.10.2008. The said land of Survey No.71/2 was converted into old tenure subject to terms and conditions stated therein that “as per the Condition No.1, words “new tenure” from the 7/12 abstract was substituted vide words “old tenure” N.A. Subject to premium.” The said order of conversion was entered into Village Form No.6 vide mutation Entry No.1666 dated 01.12.2008, which was duly certified by Circle Officer, Ranpur vide order dated 19.01.2009. 4.4 After the said conversion into old tenure, the said parcel of agricultural lands total admeasuring 6-47-50 Hector-Are-Sq.mtrs. were sold vide five different registered sale deeds in favour of various persons, including the petitioner which are stated as below: (a) agricultural land admeasuring 1-16-00 Hector-Are-Sq.mtrs. was conveyed and sold vide a registered sale deed dated 21.04.2008 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dhandhuka at Serial No.1364 in favour of one Rajeshbhai Pravinbhai Patdiya and mutation Entry No.1630 dated 01.07.2008 was posted in the record of rights in favour of the said purchaser, (b) agricultural land admeasuring 1-16-00 Hector-Are-Sq.mtrs. was conveyed and sold vide a registered sale deed dated 21.04.2008 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dhandhuka at Serial No.1365 in favour of one Pareshbhai Pravinbhai Patdiya and mutation Entry No.1631 dated 01.07.2008 was posted in the record of rights in favour of the said purchaser, (c) agricultural land admeasuring 1-38-50 Hector-Are-Sq.mtrs. was conveyed and sold vide a registered sale deed dated 11.01.2010 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dhandhuka at Serial No.54 in favour of one Savuben Karmanbhai Rabari and mutation Entry No.1919 dated 10.05.2010 was posted in the record of rights in favour of the said purchaser, (d) agricultural land admeasuring 1-38-50 Hector-Are-Sq.mtrs. was conveyed and sold vide a registered sale deed dated 11.01.2010 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dhandhuka at Serial No.55 in favour of one Puriben Somabhai Rabari and mutation Entry No.2079 dated 21.06.2011 was posted in the record of rights in favour of said purchaser, (e) agricultural land admeasuring 1-38-50 Hector-Are-Sq.mtrs. was conveyed and sold vide a registered sale deed dated 11.01.2010 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dhandhuka at Serial No.55 in favour of one Puriben Somabhai Rabari and mutation Entry No.2079 dated 21.06.2011 was posted in the record of rights in favour of said purchaser, (e) agricultural land admeasuring 1-38-50 Hector-Are-Sq.mtrs. was conveyed and sold vide a registered sale deed dated 11.01.2010 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dhandhuka at Serial No.56 in favour of one Meghuben Somabhai Rabari and mutation Entry No.2032 dated 08.03.2011 was posted in the record of rights in favour of said purchaser, 4.5 On the application of one Hamirbhai Ranabhai Lakhabhai, a resident of Village Umrala, the Collector and Prant Officer, Dholka vide order dated 25.05.2006 allotted the land admeasuring one Hectare of Government waste land out of Survey No.71/1, as new and impartible tenure on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Pursuant to the said allotment, the Office of DILR had prepared Division (Hissa) Form No.4 specifying the area and location allotted in favour of said allottee – respondent No.7 out of the said land of Survey No.71/1. Though under the said allotment, the respondent No.7 had been granted the said parcel of the Government waste land of Survey No.71/1, he was not cultivating the said Government waste land allotted to him. Surprisingly, after 12 years of allotment, vide written application dated 26.02.2018, he had given threat to the Mamlatdar, Ranpur to commit suicide, if he is not put into possession of the land allotted to him. Pursuant to such threat of committing suicide given by the respondent No.7, the respondent authorities had taken decision to evict the petitioner. After obtaining information from the office of the District Collector, Botad, the petitioner found that vide letter dated 27.02.2018, the Mamlatdar, Ranpur has written to Talati-cum-Mantri, Umrala and Revenue Talati, Umrala for handing over the physical possession of land of Survey No.42 (old Survey No.71/1 paiki 2) admeasuring 1- 13-69 H-Are-Sq.mts. in favour of the respondent No.7. On 01.03.2018, the Mamlatdar, Ranpur submitted his report to the District Collector, Botad about handing over the possession of the subject land and on the same day, the impugned show-cause notice was served upon the husband of the petitioner asking him to remove the alleged encroachment. in favour of the respondent No.7. On 01.03.2018, the Mamlatdar, Ranpur submitted his report to the District Collector, Botad about handing over the possession of the subject land and on the same day, the impugned show-cause notice was served upon the husband of the petitioner asking him to remove the alleged encroachment. Thereafter, on 05.03.2018, the Mamlatdar, Ranpur submitted his report containing Panch-Rojkam, possession receipt by reporting that the possession of the subject land was handed over in favour of the respondent No.7, though the impugned illegal notice of eviction dated 01.03.2018 was not proceeded further as provided under Section 202 of the Code. On 06.03.2018, the statement of the respondent No.7 was recorded confirming the handing over the possession of the subject land, whereby he stated that, now he will not commit suicide. 4.6 In response to the impugned illegal notice for removal of the alleged encroachment, the petitioner had submitted her reply-cum-representation to the respondent authorities and had pointed out that there is no merits in the impugned case of encroachment registered by the Mamlatdar, Ranpur. Pursuant to the said reply-cum- representation, the State Government had forwarded the case of the petitioner for doing needful, after its verification in accordance with law and call for report of outcome of such proceedings from the Revenue Department and Home Department. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Gandhi has submitted that the impugned show cause notice dated 01.03.2018 has not been proceeded further under Section 202 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (“the Code”) as the petitioner is in peaceful and vacant possession. He has submitted that the Mamlatdar, Ranpur ordered the petitioner to vacate the land though he is in possession and cultivating the same. He has submitted that the respondent authorities have failed to appreciate about the record as stated here-in-under as the same was subject to various entries. Thus, he has submitted that without appreciating necessary facts, the impugned notice of vacating the land is issued and hence, the same is required to be set aside. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Gandhi has submitted that under the provisions of Section 202 of the Code, the Collector has to follow the procedure mentioned herein to evict any person wrongfully in possession of land. He has submitted that the aforesaid mandatory procedure is violated by the concerned Mamlatdar and hence, the impugned notice being without jurisdiction is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the aforesaid mandatory procedure is violated by the concerned Mamlatdar and hence, the impugned notice being without jurisdiction is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jadjea has submitted that the Mamlatdar vide communication dated 01.03.2018 has informed the concerned Collector, after verification of all the revenue record and also on spot verification, it was found that the petitioner is not the actual owner of the land and on the ground that the husband of the petitioner, i.e., Ramshibhai Kamabhai Rabari is in illegal possession, the notice was issued on 01.03.2018, i.e., on the same day asking him to vacate the concerned land. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned notice may not be set aside. 6.1 It is further submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jadeja that the petitioner can challenge the aforesaid notice before the higher authorities and the writ petition may not be entertained challenging such notice. 7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Though served, the private respondent has chosen not to appear. 8. A perusal of the show-cause notice dated 01.03.2018 reveals that the same is issued to the husband of the petitioner asking him to vacate the land immediately or else appropriate proceedings shall be initiated against him. The notice is bereft of the necessary particulars as noted hereinabove. In fact, the petitioner has asserted that she is in possession of the land and not her husband and hence, the impugned notice issued to her husband is nullity. 9. It is also not in dispute that for evicting any person, who is in wrongful possession of the land, the provisions of Section 202 of the Code are required to be followed. 9. It is also not in dispute that for evicting any person, who is in wrongful possession of the land, the provisions of Section 202 of the Code are required to be followed. Section 202 of the code is reproduced herein: “SECTION 202 : Collector how to proceed in order to evict any person wrongfully in possession of Whenever it is provided by this, or by any other Act for the time being in force, that the Collector may or shall evict any person wrongfully in possession of land, such eviction shall be made in the following manner, viz.- by serving a notice on the person or persons in possession requiring them within such time as may appear reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land, and if such notice is not obeyed by removing or deputing a subordinate to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same, and if the officer removing any such person shall be resisted or obstructed by any person, the Collector shall hold a summary inquiry info the facts of the case, and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause, and that such resistance and obstruction still continue, may, without prejudice to any proceedings to which such person may be liable under any law for the time being in force for the punishment of such resistance or obstruction issue a warrant for the arrest of the said person, and on his appearance commit him to close custody in the office of the Collector or of any Mamlatdar or Mahalkari, or sent him with a warrant, in the form of Schedule I, for imprisonment in the civil jail of the district for such period not exceeding thirty days, as may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such obstruction or resistance.” 10. In the present case, the impugned show-cause notice travels beyond the authority of the Mamlatdar and without referring to the necessary facts as well as without referring to the concerned entries, which are recorded since the year 1968, the Mamlatdar has issued the notice to the husband of the petitioner ordering eviction. Thus, as per the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda (Supra), such notice, which is lacking in jurisdiction, can be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, as per the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda (Supra), such notice, which is lacking in jurisdiction, can be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench has observed thus: “20. In any case, as the notice could be said as without jurisdiction on the ground of delay and laches as per the well settled principles of law, we do not propose to express any final view on the aspect of Sec. 75 of the Ordinance. In any case, examining the matter on the either of the situation, the action of issuance of show cause notice can be said to be without jurisdiction, and hence, the petitioner would be justified in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.” 11. Thus, the impugned notice is hereby quashed and set aside however, it is clarified that it will be open for the respondent authorities to pass appropriate reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after verification of the entire record, appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.