Point of Law: It is pertinent to note that prior to initiation of suo motu proceeding for alleged violation of provisions of Tenancy Act, petitioner has already filed an application for conversion of the land from agriculture to nonagricultural use under Section 65 of Bombay Land Revenue Code, however, the said application was rejected but thereafter once again, the application for the grant of NA permission has been filed before the competent authority in the year 2006.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs,

“(A) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.10.2014 passed by learned Special Secretary (Appeals), State of Gujarat at Annexure-A, declaring the same to be erroneous, illegal and unlawful;

(B) to direct respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner farmers' cooperative society for permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 read with Rule 36(1)(f) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, keeping in mind the purpose and object of the petitioner farmers' cooperative society;

(C) to direct the respondent authorities to consider application of the petitioner farmers' cooperative society for conversion of agricultural land into nonagricultural use with penalty and/or premium in accordance with law;

(D) During the pendency and/or final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 29.10.2014 passed by learned Special Secretary (Appeals), State of Gujarat at Annexure-A;

(E) xxx xxx xxx.”

2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Anand Yagnik appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Despiting granting sufficient opportunity, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4.

3. The facts of the case leading to filing of the present petition are as under,

3.1 The petitioner is a registered Cooperative Farmers' Society registered under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act at Puna in the year 1924 and the said Society is engaged in the occupation of selling cotton, rice, wheat, sugarcane and vegetables and other agricultural products grown by its member farmers of Surat District and sale the same at the highest price for the benefit of the member farmers.

3.2 The petitioner purchased the land bearing Block No.278 admeasuring 1,21,736 Sq.Mtrs. situated at moje Ambheta, Taluka : Olpad, District : Surat by two separate sale deeds dated 20.04.2000 and pursuant thereto, Mutation Entry No.3984 was recorded in the revenue record on 11.05.2000.

3.3 Thereafter, the petitioner got permission before putting up construction of godowns, weighbridge and other buildings from the competent authority on 07.12.2001 and, thereafter, the petitioner has put up the construction.

3.4 However, Mutation Entry No.3984 was taken into suo motu revision by the respondent – Collector by issuing show cause notice dated 18.12.2002 i.e. after a period of two years and seven months and the said powers were exercised at the instance of the Deputy Collector on the complaint filed by the farmers of Block No.277. In the said show cause notice, it is alleged that the agricultural land is purchased by a non-agriculturist i.e. the petitioner – Cooperative Society without taking permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “Tenancy Act”) and thereby sought explanation from the petitioner as to why the said mutation entry should not be cancelled.

3.5 On receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed reply and pointed out relevant aspects. However, grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent – Collector came to a conclusion that the agricultural land is purchased for nonagricultural use by the petitioner – Cooperative Society in violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, entry is required to be cancelled. Accordingly, the order came to be passed by the respondent – Collector on 20.02.2013.

3.6 Against the said order, the petitioner filed Revision Application before the respondent – SSRD and the respondent – SSRD, by impugned order, rejected the said Revision Application. Therefore, the present petition is filed.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Anand Yagnik appearing for the petitioner has mainly contended that entry in question has been cancelle