ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Bhaumik Dholariya for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Krutik Parikh for the respondent-State who appears on advance copy. 1.1 Learned advocate Mr.Dholariya has tendered a draft amendment. The same is allowed. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the notices dated 8th February, 2023 issued by the respondent No. 2-City Mamlatdar, Asarva purportedly under Section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (for short ‘the Code’). 3.1. The brief facts of the case emerging from the record is that the petitioners, who are legal heirs of one Narendrabhai Dholariya have challenged the impugned notice and previous notices to vacate the land occupied by them which is a Government land. 3.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners, late Narendrabhai Dholariya, was proprietor of M/s.T.K. Construction engaged in providing construction centering material. Father of the petitioners passed away on 05.05.2021 and the brother-in-law of the late father of the petitioners is looking after the business of M/s.T.K. Construction thereafter. 3.3. It is pointed out in the memo of the petition that the land of Survey No. 826/1 situated at Village:Naroda, Taluka:Asarwa, District:Ahmedabad originally was admeasuring 10 Acres and 34 Gunthas. It is pointed out that one Munir Abdul Hussein Jivabhai purchased half of the land admeasuring 5 Acres and 17 Gunthas out of Survey No. 826/1 by registered sale-deed dated 18.02.1941 and revenue entry No. 2493 was mutated on 09.03.1941 recording the said transaction. 3.4. According to the petitioners, there was a mistake in mentioning the name of Abdul Hussein and therefore, entry No. 4723 was mutated correcting the name as Munir Abdulhusen Jivabhai for the said land. The petitioners have further stated that Munir Abdulhusen passed away on 16.04.1968 and heirship entry No. 7390 was mutated on 23.08.1971 mutating the names of the heirs of late Munir Abdul Hussein Jivabhai. 3.5. It is the case of the petitioners that Jibaben Nathaji, daughter of Detraji, was tenant of the remaining land, admeasuring 5 Acres and 17 Gunthas, of Survey No. 826/1 and name of Jibaben was mutated by entry No. 8763. Jibaben Nathaji passed away on 29.03.1998 and entry No. 10133 was mutated entering the names of her heirs Aataji Bhalaji and Pashaben Bhalaji. Jibaben Nathaji passed away on 29.03.1998 and entry No. 10133 was mutated entering the names of her heirs Aataji Bhalaji and Pashaben Bhalaji. According to the petitioner No. 1.1 the proceedings under the provisions of Gujarat Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Tenancy Act’) were initiated and part of Survey No. 826/1 to the extend of 5 Acres and 17 Gunthas, which was in the possession of the tenants, was found to be in breach of provisions of the Tenancy Act and therefore, was ordered to be vested in the Government. 3.6. According to the petitioners, Mamlatdar and ALT in Ganot Case No. 31 of 1989, vide order dated 01.04.1991 held Karsanji Thakarshi Sukhadiya as a tenant and fixed the price in his favour and granted the same land to him by fixing the price with restricted tenure and heirs of late Nasim Munir challenged the said order dated 01.04.1991 by preferring Tenancy Appeal No. 29 of 2003 before the Deputy Collector who by order dated 27.07.2004 set aside the order dated 01.04.1991 which has achieved the finality. 3.7. According to the petitioners, one Mansukhbhai Dahyabhai Radadiya informed the late father of the petitioners that the heirs of the original owner i.e. Bashir Munir Ahemadi, late Zahir Munir Ahemadi, Farzaben Munirbhai and legal heirs of Nasim Munir Ahemadi transferred 21701 Sq.Mtrs of the land bearing Survey No. 826/1 paiki in his favour and Development Agreement dated 16.10.2004 was executed by the aforesaid legal heirs of original owner in favour of Mansukhbhai Dahyabhai Radadiya. The petitioners have placed such Development Agreement dated 16.10.2004 on record at Annexure-G. 3.8. Late father of the petitioners purchased a portion of the said land admeasuring 2060 Sq. Yards situated at northwest side adjacent to Kharicut Canal Road from Survey No. 826/1/1 of Village:Naroda, Taluka:Asarwa, District:Ahmedabad from Mansukhbhai Dahyabhai Radadiya through unregistered agreement to sale dated 15/18.12.2018 by paying consideration of Rs.85,00,000/- and Possession Agreement and General Power of Attorney of the same date was also executed by Mansukhbhai Dahyabhai Radadiya in favour of the late father of the petitioners. 3.9. The late father of the petitioners thereafter occupied the land in question for the aforesaid business by payment of Electricity Bills, Construction of Store Rooms etc. for the purpose of the business. 3.10. 3.9. The late father of the petitioners thereafter occupied the land in question for the aforesaid business by payment of Electricity Bills, Construction of Store Rooms etc. for the purpose of the business. 3.10. The respondent No. 2, by notice dated 05.11.2022 addressed to the owner of the T.K. Construction, stated that the unauthorized construction on the land of Government Survey No. 826/1/1 was made which is to be removed within seven days. 3.11. Thereafter, the impugned notices are served upon the T.K. Construction and therefore the petitioners have approached this Court. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Bhaumik Dholariya for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No. 2 has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 61 or Section 79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (for short ‘the Code’) and straight away issued the notice for eviction without mentioning any provisions of the Code and therefore, the impugned notices are bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside. 4.2. It was submitted that late father of the petitioners and subsequently, the petitioners are in possession of the land in question since 2018 and they are occupying the said land from Mansukhbhai Radadiya pursuant to the Development Agreement dated 16.10.2004 executed by the legal heirs of the original owners in respect of the land in question and agreement of sale dated 15/18.12.2018, possession agreement in favour of Late father of the petitioner. 4.3. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Government of Gujarat vs. Amraji Motiji Thakor, 1991 (2) GLH 606 rendered in First Appeal No. 148 of 1968 and Special Civil Application No. 1099 of 1976 to submit that the notice under Section 202 of the Code does not in itself amount to a decision or an order of eviction of a person wrongfully in possession of the land but, it is only a mode of an enforcement of such decision or order recorded under the substantive provisions of the Code or any other Act for the time being in force conferring powers on the Collector to evict such person. 4.4. 4.4. It was therefore submitted that in absence of any proceedings under Section 61 or Section 79A of the Code or under any other provisions of any other law, the respondent No. 2 could not have issued the impugned notice under Section 202 of the Code to evict the petitioners from the land in question as the petitioners have never been declared as encroachers by any order by any authority under the law. 5.1. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Krutik Parikh for the respondent No. 1 submitted that admittedly, the land in question situated at Survey No. 826/1/1 is a Government land and the petitioners are occupying the Government land and for that, there is no need for issuance of any order declaring the petitioners as encroachers as it is an admitted fact that the petitioners are in possession and in occupation of the land of Survey No. 826/1/1. 5.2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Parikh in support of his submissions referred to and relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2-Mamlatdar, Asarwa, Ahmedabad: “9. I further say and submits that the petitioner has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and try to create their right title and interest on the basis of unregistered sale-agreement dated 18.05.2019 made between Mansukhbhai Dahyabhai Radardya and Dholariya Narendra Mohanbhai and also relying upon the earlier development agreement dated 16.10.2004 made between Mansukh Dahyabhai Radadiya and Heirs Basheer Munir Ahmedy and others, The copies the Development agreement dated 16.10.2004 and a gale agreement dated 15/18.12.2018 are placed at page no. 39 and 49 with the memo of the petition. 10. I say and submit that bare perusal of the both these documents Crystallized the fact that the area situation mentioned at page no. 3 of the development agreement and the area of situated mentioned at page no. 2 of the unregistered Sale Neem agreement are different. The actual area i.e. land bearing survey no. 826/1 paiki admeasuring 21701. sq. mtrs which is mentioned in the development agreement which is forming part of survey no. 826/1/2 whereas in actual area mentioned in the sale agreement is admeasuring 21702 sq. mtrs is forming part of ened survey no. 826/1/1 i.e. Government land. 11. To further substantiate the above submissions, earlier the entire survey no. 826/1 paiki admeasuring 21701. sq. mtrs which is mentioned in the development agreement which is forming part of survey no. 826/1/2 whereas in actual area mentioned in the sale agreement is admeasuring 21702 sq. mtrs is forming part of ened survey no. 826/1/1 i.e. Government land. 11. To further substantiate the above submissions, earlier the entire survey no. 826 admeasuring 43403 sq.mtrs wherein qua half portion the tenancy dispute was arose and the land was vested in State Government for which entry was mutated in the revenue record being entry number 10538 in view of breach of condition and thereafter the tenant had approach before this Hon’ble Court preferring Special Civil Application no. 7041 of 1997 by setting aside the order Mam and alt by remanding the matter with direction to reconsider. The Mam and alt took decision on 09.12.2003 and the said land was vested in the State Government and mutation entry to that effect was mutated being entry no. 13504. Copies entry no. 10538 and 13504 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R1 collectively. 12. I say and submit that thereafter survey 826 was bifurcated into four parts 826/1/1 Government land consisting half portion of total land and 826/1/2, 826/1/3, 826/1/4 private land and the entry to that effect pending entry no. 13729 was mutated in the revenue record on 19.08.2004 and thereafter consolidated into two parts as private land was purchased by way of registered sale-deed number 5649 by the Jagdishbhai Gangjibhai Ramani and Shipaben Jagdishbhai Ramani. The copy of the entry no. 13729 is annexed herewith and ma as Annexure-R2. 13. That thereafter out of four parcel, it again consolidated into two parts being survey no. 826/1/1 and 826/1/2 and entry to that effect was mutated being entry no. 16455 on 21.10.2008. The copy of the entry no. 16455 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R3. 14. I say and submit that therefore the development agreement entered in the year 2004 is for the private land which was valid only for 24 months whereas the so called unregistered sale-agreement was entered in the year 2018 for the Government land. And therefore the same is void abinitio and cannot be taken as valid for confirming right title or interest over the land. 15. And therefore the same is void abinitio and cannot be taken as valid for confirming right title or interest over the land. 15. The State authority had initiated drive to remove unauthorized encroachment in the year 2018 on being receive complain to the authority and therefore panchrojkam was drawn through Talati, Naroda on 01.10.2019 but as the area of encroachment was on larger scale it was opined by the talati to have measurement through D.I.L.R. to fixed the boundaries of Government Land and the private land, and accordingly D.I.L.R. had carried out the measurement on 09.03.2022 wherein the petitioners were also remain present and also other occupiers and encroachers and mapsheet was prepared on 22.03.2022. The copy of the map with report prepared by the D.I.L.R. is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R4. 16. At that point of time it was evident that the petitioners have encroached land from survey no. 926/1/1 admeasuring 2060 sq yard and present petition and admeasuring 1264 Sq. yard in Special Civil Application no. 3635 and thereafter several notices were issued on 05.11.2022, 23.12.2022, 09.01.2023 and 08.02.2023, but no notices were replied by the petitioners though all the notices were received by the representatives and initiate drive to demolish the unauthorized construction and demolish construction of commercial in nature on 13.02.2023. The petitioners have give undertaking on 13.02.2023 that they will further demolish the unauthorized construction by themselves within four days. The copies panchnama alongwith undertaking are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R5 Collectively.” 5.3. Referring to the aforesaid averments, it was submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish their right, title or interest on the Government land nor any valid document is made available on the record to show even a prima-facie case and therefore, the case of the petitioners would not fall within the purview of the provisions of Sections 61 and 79A of the Code. 5.4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Parikh, in addition to the aforesaid submissions, referred to and relied upon the further affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 to point out that for removal of the encroachment on the Government land in State of Gujarat, several instructions by way of Circulars are issued. 5.5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Parikh pointed out various Circulars which are referred in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 which reads as under: “2. 5.5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Parikh pointed out various Circulars which are referred in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 which reads as under: “2. I say and submit that so far as the procedure for removal of the encroachment from the Government land in the State of Gujarat is concerned, the State Government had time and again issued several instructions by way of Circulars. To cite few of such circulars to assist the Hon’ble Court in the Present case, the answering respondent respectfully submits that the State Government through Revenue Department had issued instructions vide circular dated 05.11.2001 the instructions was issued that in case of encroachment of industrial/commercial in nature, the necessary steps is to be taken to stop the require electric and water connections, in furtherance to the same, the encroachment is to be removed by 01.12.2001. The State Government vide circular dated 14.12.2001 had issued instructions to the effect to lodge criminal complaint in the cases so found that there is unauthorized encroachment on the Government land, infact vide circular dated 23.04.2004 the State Government had issued instructions to even take effective steps under the provisions of of Anti-Social Activities Act, Prevention 1985 (PASA) against such land grabbers and against those who have encroached upon the Government land. The State Government through circular dated 16.10.2004 in had categorically issued instructions to also the effect that the revenue authority has to take effective steps to see to it that no encroachment can be made on the Government land and also to take effective steps to remove the unauthorized encroachment from the Government land. Even recently after the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, The State Government vide circular dated 16.07.2022 had issued instruction to lodge land grabbing offences against those who encroached upon the Government Land. Copies of circulars dated 05.11.2001, 14.12.2001, 23.04.2004, 16.10.2004 and 16.07.2022 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P1 Collectively.” 5.6. Referring to the above Circulars, it was submitted that the Circle Officer, Mamlatdars and the Revenue Officers, as the case may be, are the responsible Officers who have to make sure that the smooth implementation of the instructions issued by the State Government, more particularly, to see to it that effective steps to stop such enroachment or to remove such encroachment on the Government land are taken at the earliest. 5.7. 5.7. It was pointed out that the concerned Officer is maintaining the Encroachment Register in the case where Section 61 of the Land Revenue Code proceedings is required to be followed. However, in the facts of the case, admittedly, the land in question is a Government land which is occupied by the petitioners since 2018 and in spite of issuing various notices since 2022, the petitioners have not vacated the land in question. 5.8. It was submitted that the land in question is vested in Government land after following the procedure of the Tenancy Act and therefore, in such cases, provisions of Section 61 or Section 79A of the Code would not be applicable. 5.9. It was pointed out that in the year 2018, a complaint was received from the nearby Society that there is an unauthorized encroachment on survey No. 826/1/1 and accordingly, it was found that the petitioners are occupying the land of survey No. 826/1/1 which admittedly a Government land and therefore, the impugned notices are issued to the petitioners to vacate the land in question. 5.10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Parikh in support of his submissions referred to and replied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No. 2: “5. I say and submit that in the instant case, in the year 2018 the Society had made oral request was made by the Society to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, and in the month of 29.06.2019 one complaint from Kothiya Pravinbhai V was received with regards to remove unauthorized encroachment from survey no. 826/1/1 situated at Moje: Naroda, Ta.: Asarwa, Dist.: Ahmedabad and on 10.10.2019 the Chairman of Shivkrupa Tenement had made written complaint to the office of the Collector, Ahmedabad and Subordinate officers by requesting to remove encroachment from the survey no. 826/1/1 as the same being the Government Land. Even the complaints to the said aspect was forwarded on behalf of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 25.05.2021 to the Collector, Ahmedabad and the said aspect convey through City Deputy Collector to the Mamlatdar Aswara on 13.07.2021. Copies of the complaints dated 29.06.2019 and 10.10.2019, and letters dated 25.05.2021 and 13.07.2021 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexurea p2 Collectively. 6. I say and submit that vide communication dated 13.07.2021 the instructions was issued to the answering respondent to initiate necessary procedure to remove the unauthorized encroachment in accordance with law. Copies of the complaints dated 29.06.2019 and 10.10.2019, and letters dated 25.05.2021 and 13.07.2021 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexurea p2 Collectively. 6. I say and submit that vide communication dated 13.07.2021 the instructions was issued to the answering respondent to initiate necessary procedure to remove the unauthorized encroachment in accordance with law. 7. I further say and submit that as stated in the affidavit in reply, upon receipt of the complaint, the State Authority had initiated drive to remove unauthorized encroachment from Government land forming part of survey no. 826/1/1. 8. I say and submit that State Government through Revenue Department had issued policy dated 18.04.2017 which was implemented w.e.f. 09.05.2017 on the aspect of supplement settlement on the Transaction area. Vide Gujarat Act no. 23 of 2017, The Gujarat Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2017 was came into effect, in which chapter 9A was added in the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and Sections 125A to 125U respectively added. The aspect of Relevant period as provided under sub Section (8) of Section 125A was later on amended vide notification dated 28.02.2019. The same read as “In the said notification, for the figures, letters and words “1st January, 2000 and onwards” the figures, letters and word “1st January, 2015” shall be substituted. The copy of the notification dated 28.02.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P3.” 5.11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Parikh relying upon the aforesaid averments made on oath submitted that in view of the fact that the land in question is a Government land, the respondent No. 2 is justified in issuing the notices and the petitioners are entitled to give reply to such notices justifying their occupation as the impugned notices are issued calling upon the petitioners to make submissions and to vacate the premises of the land in question as the same is a Government land. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that it is not in dispute that the survey No. 826/1/1 of Village:Naroda, Taluka:Asarwa, District:Ahmedabad is a Government land as held in the Tenancy proceedings which has achieved finality in the year 2004. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that it is not in dispute that the survey No. 826/1/1 of Village:Naroda, Taluka:Asarwa, District:Ahmedabad is a Government land as held in the Tenancy proceedings which has achieved finality in the year 2004. Entry No. 13504 dated 01.01.2004 which was certified on 27th February, 2004 clearly stipulates that the land of survey No. 826/1, admeasuring 5 Acres and 17 Gunthas wherein, the occupiers namely Karshanji Thakarshi, Jahir Munir, Nasim Munir, Bashir Munir, Farjana Munir, Bai Rehana i.e. widow of Munir Abdul, Aataji Bhalaji, Pasiben Bhalaji were occupying the land and in Ganot Case NO. 446/01, the said land admeasuring 5 Acres and 17 Gunthas was given to legal heirs of Aataji Bhalaji and on the said land, without permission, the illegal construction was made, resulting into breach of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and the entire land vested as Government land. 7. Similarly, Entry No. 13729 was mutated on 19.08.2004 wherein, on the basis of the report of the District Inspector of Land Record with regard to the land admeasuring 217220, name of the Government was mutated, whereas, the rest of the land is in name of the original owners of Survey Nos.826/1/2, 826/1/3 and 826/1/4. Thereafter, by Entry No. 16455 dated 21.10.2008, Survey Nos.826/1/2, 826/1/3, and 826/1/4 admeasuring 21094 Sq.Mtrs were consolidated as survey No. 826/1/2. 8. The provisions of Sections 61 and 79A of the Code provide as under: “61. Thereafter, by Entry No. 16455 dated 21.10.2008, Survey Nos.826/1/2, 826/1/3, and 826/1/4 admeasuring 21094 Sq.Mtrs were consolidated as survey No. 826/1/2. 8. The provisions of Sections 61 and 79A of the Code provide as under: “61. Penalties for unauthorized occupation of land - Any person who shall unauthorizedly enter upon occupation of any land set apart for any special purpose, or any unoccupied land which has not been alienated, and any person who uses or occupies any such land to the use or occupation of which by reason of any of the provisions of this Act he is not entitled or has ceased to be entitled shall,] if the land which he unauthorizedly occupies forms part of an assessed survey number, pay the assessment of the entire number for the whole period of his [unauthorized] occupation, and if the land so occupied by him has not been assessed, such amount of assessment as would be leviable for the said period in the same village on the same extent of similar land [used for] the same purpose; and shall also be liable, at the discretion of the Collector, to a fine not exceeding [one per cent of the prevalent annual statement of rate (Jantri) as may be notified by the state Government from time to time] if he has taken up the land for purposes of cultivation, and not exceeding such limit as may be fixed in rules made in this behalf under section 214, if he has [used it for] any non-agricultural purpose. The Collector’s decision as to the amount of assessment payable for the land unauthorizedly occupied shall be conclusive, and in determining its amount occupation for [a portion] of year shall be counted as for a whole year. The person unauthorizedly occupying any such land may be summarily evicted by the collector, and any crop raised in the land shall be liable to forfeiture, and any building, or other construction, erected thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Collector may deem reasonable, be liable to forefeiture [or to summary removal]. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector, and any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector may direct [and the cost of the removal of any encroachment under this section shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue]. 79A. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector, and any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector may direct [and the cost of the removal of any encroachment under this section shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue]. 79A. Any person unauthorizedly occupying, or wrongfully in possession of, any land: (a) to the use or occupation of which by reason of any of the provisions of this Act he is not entitled or has ceased to be entitled. (b) [which] is not transferable without previous sanction under [section 73A or section 73AA or section 73AB] by virtue of any condition lawfully [annexed to the tenure] under the provisions of section 62, 67 or 68, may be summarily evicted by the Collector]: Provided that this section shall not apply in the case where the tribal transferor does not make an application under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 73 AA within the time specified in that clause for restoration of possession.” 9. Section 61 provides for penalties for unauthorized occupation of land whereas, Section 79A provides for summary eviction of person unauthorizedly occupying a land. Both the provisions of the Code would be applicable when it is not in dispute that the person who is occupying the land is not a Government land. 10. The facts of the case are different than the facts which were present before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Gujarat versus Amraji Motiji Thjakor rendered in First Appeal No. 148 of 1968, wherein, the First Appeal arose from a decree passed in Civil Suit No. 832 of 1964 for a declaration that the notice issued by the Deputy Collector for taking away the possession of the land in dispute was illegal and for the injunction restraining the defendant and its servants from disturbing the possession of the Suit land of Survey No. 240. In the said case, the land was described as a Chakariyu in the Revenue Records and the case of the plaintiff in the said case was that this land originally belongs to their forefathers and its land revenue was alienated in favour of their forefathers in lieu of services as village servants useful to the Government to be rendered. In the said case, the land was described as a Chakariyu in the Revenue Records and the case of the plaintiff in the said case was that this land originally belongs to their forefathers and its land revenue was alienated in favour of their forefathers in lieu of services as village servants useful to the Government to be rendered. Whereas, in the facts of the case, admittedly the land in question is a Government land and therefore, neither the provisions of Section 61 or 79A would be applicable. 11. In view of such facts, the observations made by the Full Bench in the said case are relevant to be considered which read as under: “11. It is true that Sec. 202 of the Code is not necessarily confined to the case of persons dealt with under Secs. 61 and 79A only. Therefore, we must try to find out whether there is anything in Sec. 202 which, notwithstanding the aforesaid discussion based on the provisions of Secs. 61 and 79A of the Code and Sec. 9 of the Revenue Tribunal Act, may lead us to the conclusion that the notice issued under Sec. 202 itself amounts to a decision or order. The opening portion of the section refers in terms to the power of the Collector to evict a person wrongfully in possession of the land either under the provisions of the Code or in any other Act for the time being in force. That power, we have already seen, lies outside the provisions of Sec. 202. It is with regard to the eviction of person whose eviction has been decided upon in exercise of the aforesaid power that the section makes provision. The section provides for the manner of enforcement of a decision or order of eviction taken in exercise of powers to be found in the Code or in any other law of the time being in force. It is a sort of a provisions similar to execution of a decree of a Civil Court. The mode of enforcing the decision or order is a notice requiring the person ordered to be evicted to vacate the land within such time as may appear to the Collector to be reasonable. It is a sort of a provisions similar to execution of a decree of a Civil Court. The mode of enforcing the decision or order is a notice requiring the person ordered to be evicted to vacate the land within such time as may appear to the Collector to be reasonable. The need for such notice and giving of reasonable time seems to have been included because the eviction Is to take place from land which in many cases may have been put to agricultural use. There is nothing in Sec. 202 to indicate that the Legislature intended this notice to be a decision or order of eviction. The notice to evict with reasonable time ordinarily is not the expression used by the Legislature to denote a decision or order of eviction. The provision in the said section as to removal of resistance or obstruction after a summary enquiry also indicates that the section pertains to the domain of execution or enforcement of a decision or order already taken or made in exercise of power conferred by some substantive provision of the Code or any other Act for the time being in force. The original note to the section reads ‘Collector how to proceed in order to evict any person wrongfully in possession of land.” This note also shows the drift of the section m the direction of enforcement or execution of decision or order of eviction. 12. In Chimanlal's case (supra), the Bombay High Court had to deal with the contention based on Sec. 14 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876. The said provision debarred a Civil Court from entertaining any suit against the Government on account of any act or omission of any revenue officer unless the plaintiff had first presented all such appeals allowed by law for the time being in force within a period of limitation for institution of the suit. The question arose whether prior to bringing such a suit by the plaintiff in that case an appeal against the notice in respect of the suit land given under Sec. 202 of the Code should have been presented. The question arose whether prior to bringing such a suit by the plaintiff in that case an appeal against the notice in respect of the suit land given under Sec. 202 of the Code should have been presented. Divetia, J. speaking for the Bench said at page 165 as under: “It is clear to my mind that the Government can pass an order for eviction of a person who is wrongfully in possession of land by giving him the notice as prescribed in this section. That notice in fact amounts to a decision or order of the Government to evict the person who is in such wrongful possession. There is no provision in the Land Revenue Code that before the notice under Sec. 202 is given, the Government should actually pass an order and communicate that order to the party concerned before giving him notice. It is open to the Government to pass an order in the form of a notice, and as provided by the section to serve it on the party concerned, and if that is done, the Government must be deemed to have complied with the provisions of the Land Revenue Code.” 13. The learned Judge did recognise that the Government has power to summarily evict under Secs. 61, 66 and 79A of the Code the only reason on which the conclusion mentioned in the aforesaid observations was reached was that there was no provision in the Code showing that before issuing notice under Sec. 202, the Government should actually pass an order and communicate it to the person concerned. With great respect it is not possible to agree with this reason. In our opinion, Sec. 202 of the Code does not operate in the field of taking a decision or making an order of eviction, but it operates in the field of enforcement of that decision or order. The section contemplates actual eviction if the notice is not obeyed by removing any person who may refuse to vacate the land. Not only that, if any resistance or obstruction is offered, the section also contemplates summary enquiry by the Collector in the facts of the case. The section contemplates actual eviction if the notice is not obeyed by removing any person who may refuse to vacate the land. Not only that, if any resistance or obstruction is offered, the section also contemplates summary enquiry by the Collector in the facts of the case. If the Collector is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and such resistance or obstruction still continues, the same can, inter-alia, be removed by issuing a warrant for the arrest of the person causing resistance or obstruction and his commitment to close custody as provided in the section. All these elements would clearly show that Section 202 operates in the field of enforcement of a decision or order as to eviction passed under the substantive provisions contained in the Code or any other Act for the time being in force, conferring power on the Collector to evict a person wrongfully in possession of land. 18. Our answer to the question re-framed is as under: (1) A notice under Sec. 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code does not in itself account to a decision or order of eviction of a person wrong fully in possession of land; but is only a mode of enforcement of such decision or order recorded under the substantive provisions of the Code or any other Act for the time being in force conferring power on the Collector to evict such person. (2) In view of the above conclusion, the question of application of principles of natural justice at the stage of issuing notice under Sec. 202 does not arise. It is made clear, however, that the principles of natural justice would be applicable at the stage of recording the decision or order to evict in case of exercise of power by the Collector under Sec. 61 or 79A of the Code which are some of the substantive provisions in the Code conferring such power on the Collector. (3) The summary enquiry contemplated by the latter part of Sec. 202 is not meant for reaching or recording a decision or order of eviction. (3) The summary enquiry contemplated by the latter part of Sec. 202 is not meant for reaching or recording a decision or order of eviction. It applies to the contingency of resistance or obstruction in taking possession of land, in the course of enforcement of a decision or order to evict made under some provision of the code such as Sec. 61 or 79 A or any other Act for the time being in force empowering the Collector to evict a person wrongfully in possession of land.” 12. The above findings of the Full Bench in the case of Amraji Motiji Thjakor (Supra), on the contrary would go against the petitioners as it is not in dispute that the petitioners are occupying Government land and admittedly an unregistered agreement for sale in respect of a Government land situated at Survey No. 826/1/1 was executed in 2018 and therefore, no interference is required to be made in the impugned notices. 13. Moreover, from the map produced on record at Annexure R4 at page No. 122, it appears that the Survey No. 826/1/1 is earmarked wherein, portion (d) and (k) are in the occupation of the petitioners. Thus, it is admitted that it is not in dispute from the record that the petitioners are occupying the Government land and therefore, no interference is called for while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for interfering in the process of evicting the Government land initiated by the respondent No. 2. 14. The petition therefore being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.