Point in Issue :
Whether impugned order passed in revision is sustainable.

Jayant Patel, J.—The short facts of the case appear to be that one Satyanarayan Mandir Trust was holding the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 1810 at Mehsana. Over the said land, there was claim of Respondent No. 1 as tenant of the said land on the basis of the cultivation. It appears that on 20.4.1971 as per the petitioner, the rights of Tenancy were surrendered by Respondent No. 1 and his fore-fathers to Satyanarayan Mandir Trust and the entry for such purpose was also certified and accordingly Satyanarayan Mandir Trust became the absolute owner and occupier of the land in question. On 12.12.1983, an application was preferred by the said Satyanarayan Mandir Trust for non-agricultural use of the land to the competent authority. On 16.11.1989 the competent authority granted permission for use of the land for non-agricultural purpose to Satyanarayan Mandir Trust. Based on the said permission, under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) for non-agricultural use, Satyanarayan Mandir Trust sold the land to Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited on 16.3.1990 and such sale had taken place after requisite permission from the Charity Commissioner. The petitioner thereafter on 16.4.1990 purchased the said land from Satyanarayan Co-op. Society Limited by registered sale deed against the consideration of Rs. 20 lac. As per the petitioner, after the land was purchased, the petitioner Trust has constructed a temple, dharmashala and hostel buildings over the said land. Thereafter, on 21.3.1994, the Respondent No. 1 claiming the right as tenant in the land, which came to be surrendered as back as in the year 1971, preferred an application under Section 211 of the Code before the State Government against the order passed by the Collector dated 16.11.1989 for grant of permission for N.A. use. The pertinent aspect is that in the revision application under Section 211 of the Code, neither the petitioner Trust, nor its predecessor-in-title, Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited was joined as party. The Dy. Secretary of the State Government, thereafter, heard the revision and in spite of the factum of transfer of the land by Satyanarayan Mandir Trust to Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited, having brought to his notice, he proceeded to pass the order and has passed the impugned order dated 4.10.1994 - Annexure C. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present petition.

2. Heard Mr. Jitendra M. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.D. Shah, learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1, Respondent No. 2, though served, has chosen not to appear. I have also heard Mr. Raval, learned AGP for Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5.

3. It is apparent from the impugned order passed by the Dy. Secretary of the State Government that in the proceedings of the Revision, which came to be finalized by him, the Collector, Mehsana was joined as Opponent No. 1 and Satyanarayan Mandir Trust, through its Trustee, Mr. Pratapbhai Gordhandas Sheth, was joined as Opponent No. 2. Neither Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited, who had purchased the land from Satyanarayan Mandir Trust, nor the petitioner Trust, who purchased the land from Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited was joined as the Opponent in the revisional proceedings. The pertinent aspect is that in the impugned order at Para 3 the Dy. Secretary of the State Government has recorded the written submission made on behalf of Opponent No. 2 therein namely; Satyanarayan Mandir Trust through its Advocate, Shri BBarot, in which it was stated that the disputed land has been sold to Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited, but construction was not made and one temple was constructed. Therefore, the factum of transfer of land by Satyanarayan Mandir Trust to Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited was on record and was brought to the notice of the Dy. Secretary of the State Governm