( 1 ) WHETHER respondent No. 2 - Assistant Collector, Dabhoi, has jurisdiction to revoke or cancel the N. A. permission granted by or on behalf of the Collector is the main theme of the present petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-company is a company established under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner-company purchased the land bearing survey no. 77 - Part admeasuring Acres 6 Gunthas 22 situated in the sim of village Sarnej, taluka Vaghodia, District Vadodara, for the purpose of establishing a woollen yarn factory from respondent Nos. 3 to 5 who applied for conversion of the said land into non-agricultural use on 18th November 1989. The permission for nonagricultural use submitted by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 came to be granted by the t. D. O. , Vaghodia, by his order dated 12-2-1990. The mutation entry No. 1025 came to be effected in the revenue record pursuant to the said permission. The said entry was certified on 10-5-1990. The petitioner-company had thus purchased the land in question admeasuring 4 acres from respondent Nos. 3 to 5 by paying consideration of Rs. 1,19,155. 00 by registered sale deed dated 2nd November 1990. The name of the petitioner-company came to be mutated pursuant to mutation entry No. 1027 in the revenue record. It was also later on certified. The petitioner-company had started taking steps for establishing woollen yarn factory taking financial assistance from various financial institutions.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 Assistant Collector issued a show-cause notice indicating 5 defects or points and non-compliance of some of the aspects of the permission for non-agricultural use. Notice was replied. None of the five objections is pertaining to the authority of the Taluka Development Officer in granting the permission. The petitioner-company through its officers appeared and rectified the defects in part. Some of the documents which were sought and not produced were also later on produced by the petitioner-company. Respondent No. 2 by his order dated 11-7-1990 cancelled the non-agricultural permission granted by the T. D. O. on 12-2-1990. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner-company now comes before this Court knocking the doors of justice.

( 4 ) THE first question which arises for the consideration at this juncture is as to whether the Assistant Collector could be said to be a competent person to pass the impugned order ? In other words, could it be said that the Assistant Collector has jurisdiction to take the matter in a suo motu revision under S. 211 of the Bombay land Revenue Code ("the Code" for short) and to cancel the permission for nonagricultural use granted by the Collector or his delegate under S. 65 of the Code. Taking into account the overall scheme and the underlying purport and design of s. 65 and S. 211 of the Code, the obvious answer would be in the negative.

( 5 ) SECTION 65 of the Code reads as under : "65. Use to which occupant of land for purposes of agriculture may put his land :- Any occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture is entitled by himself, his servants, tenants, agents, or other legal representatives, to erect farmbuildings, construct wells or tanks, or make any other improvements thereon for the better cultivation of the land, or its more convenient use for the purpose aforesaid. Procedure if occupant wishes to apply his land to any other purpose :- But, if any occupant wishes to use his holding or any part thereof for any other purpose the Collectors permission shall in the first place be applied for by the occupant. The Collector shall on receipt of such application, - (a) shall send to the applicant a written acknowledgment of its receipt, and (b) may, after due inquiry, either grant or refuse the permission applied for;provided further that, where the Collector fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three mo