( 1 ) THE petitioner, aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Collector, junagadh, in Revision Application No, 6 of 1988, has approached this Court with this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in a narrow compass, are that, in the year 1981, on the 23rd january, permission for non-agricultural use was granted by the Taluka Development officer, Mendarda, in respect of Survey No. 68, admeasuring 0. 38 Gunthas, on certain conditions. Those conditions were fulfilled. One of the conditions was that a particular parcel of land was required to be kept open for public purpose. That condition was also fulfilled. Later on, as it was found that the piece of land which was kept open for public purpose could not be utilized for the purpose, an application was made on the 15th March, 1982 for re-grant of that piece of land on payment of premium. Again, the Taluka development Officer, Mendarda, by an order dated the 27th April, 1982, allowed that application and re-granted that piece of land to the petitioner. Nothing happened thereafter and the land was developed by the petitioner and construction was made for residential purposes, A certificate, in this regard, was also issued by Gram Panchayat, moti Khodiyar. Suddenly, a notice came to be issued by the Deputy Collector, Junagadh, in 1988 in Revision Application No. 6 of 1988, calling upon the petitioner to show-cause why the permission for non-agricultural use granted by the abovesaid orders may not be cancelled. After hearing the parties, the learned Deputy Collector, passed the impugned order dated the 31st December, 1989. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by this petition.

( 3 ) LEARNED Deputy Collector observed that re-grant of land is illegal and that there is no resolution passed by Executive Committee of Taluka Panchayat, Mendarda, for non-agricultural use, as contemplated under Sec. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and, therefore, this suo motu revision was initiated. The learned Deputy Collector observed that the Taluka Development Officer has no jurisdiction to permit non-agricultural use under Sec. 65 of the Land Revenue Code, but the power vests with the Executive Committee of the Taluka Panchayat and the order can be passed only after such Committee accords sanction by appropriate resolution. In the instant case, no such procedure was followed, no permission of the Executive Committee was taken, opinion of the concerned department has not been obtained and the order is passed within a short spell of 17 days. It was observed that the orders were passed under some pressure. The orders granting permission for non-agricultural use and re-grant of land were, therefore, set aside.

( 4 ) MR. Y. S. Lakhani, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the order of the Deputy Collector is based on the fact that the permission for non-agricultural use was granted by the Taluka Development Officer without jurisdiction or authority. This observation is not correct. According to Mr. Lakhani, this Court in the case of Yashkamal builders vs. State of Gujarat, 1989 (1) GLH 177 has taken a contrary view. Mr. Lakhani submitted further that the suo motu action initiated by the Deputy Collector was after a lapse of seven to eight years, during which time, constructions have been made and people started staying in the house. The action, having been taken after an unreasonable lapse of time, may not be supported. In support of his submission, Mr. Lakhani has placed reliance on the decision of this Court is the case of Jiviben Kalaji Bapuji vs. State of gujarat and Ors. , 1998 (2) GLH 556 and Ranchhodbhai Lallubhai Patel vs. State of gujarat and Ors. , 1984 (2) GLR 1225, and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ram Chand and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. , 1994 (1) SCC 44. Mr. Lakhani submitted that, after non-agricultural use permission was granted, the land was plotted and so