The exercise of statutory power must be within a reasonable time, and an authority cannot decide an issue falling under a different law while exercising powers under another statute.

N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. The present petition is directed against order dated 29th November, 1989, passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department-respondent No. 1 herein. Thereby, the said authority in exercise of suo motu powers under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, cancelled the non-agricultural permission granted by the Taluka Development Officer as per his order dated 17th December, 1981. It was required from petitioner to obtain necessary permission under section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; it was provided further that for period of two months the factory building of the petitioner on the land in question shall not be removed.

2. Outlining the relevant facts available from the pleadings and record of the petition, the land bearing block No. 115 admeasuring five acres and seven gunthas situated in the sim of village Pratappura, Taluka Halol, Panchmahal, belonged to one Mangalsingh Gulabsingh and others. Said Malgalsingh applied for getting the land converted into Non-Agricultural. Respondent No. 2-Taluka Development Officer granted N. A. permission on 17th December, 1981. Thereupon, entry came to be muted in the revenue records on 17th March, 1982. The said land thereupon came to be sold to one Sheth Sunilkumar. The present petitioner purchased two acres of land out of the total area from said Sheth Sunil Kumarby way of registered deed of sale dated 16th April, 1982, bearing No. 547. The petitioner started a small-scale industry for production of industrial oil. The financial assistance also obtained by the petitioner from Gujarat State Financial Corporation. He got the necessary permission from Gujarat Pollution Board.

3. Respondent No. 1 issued a show-cause notice dated 24th February, 1986 to the petitioner stating that respondent No. 1 did not have authority in law to grant the N.A. Permission, calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the permission should not be cancelled. The powers under section211 of the Code were exercised suo motu by respondent No. 1. On perusal of the copy of the aforesaid show cause notice from the record, it was seen that two main grounds were mentioned therein. First was that the powers under Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code were conferred by the District Panchayat to the Taluka Panchayat, but Taluka Panchayat had not delegated those powers upon the Taluka Development Officer, therefore the Taluka Development Officer granted non-agricultural permission without having any authority in law. The second reason given was that the land in question was a new tenure land for which before converting it into Non-Agricultural purpose, a permission of competent authority was necessary to be obtained. In the said notice, it was directed to maintain status quo with regard to the land. The petitioner sent written reply-cum-representation. However, the impugned order ensured.

4. This court heard learned advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Tirthraj Pandya for the respondent authorities.

5. The first premise on which the respondent No. 1 proceeded to exercise his powers for taking the matter in suo motu revision, has no room to sustain. It was on the ground that without delegation by the Taluka Panchayat, the Taluka Development Officer did not have powers to grant non-agricultural permission, because even though the Taluka panchayat was invested with such powers by the District Panchayat, they were not exercisable by the Taluka Development Officer. A decision of this court in M/s. Yashkamal Builders, Baroda v. State of Gujarat and Others [1989 (1) GLH 177] answers and covers the issue. By virtue of powers conferred under section 157(1) of the Act on the State Government, the powers of the Collector under section 55 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code came to be transferred to the District Panchayat and subsequently under the orders of the State Government, they were given to the Tal