JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. The appeal is of the year 2015. The same was admitted on 27.4.2015, hence, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. We have heard the arguments of Shri Sahil Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State and Shri Dhaval Dave, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Jigar M. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the records.

3. The land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 250/1 to 250/6 admeasuring 13891 sq. mtrs. Mauje: Makarba, Taluka: Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”) was allotted initially, in favour of one Lavar Chhaganlal Gangaram with a condition that same could not be subdivided vide order dated 15.6.1943. On the death of the original allottee on 5.3.1997, his legal heir namely Shri Purshottambhai, sought for mutating the revenue records and accordingly, it was mutated. On his demise, the legal heirs of Purshottambhai, sought for mutation of the revenue records and accordingly, the mutation was carried out in their names. The legal heirs of Purshottambhai, sold the land bearing Survey No. 250 to eight persons. Pursuant to which, the revenue records were mutated on 2.8.1996 as per entry no. 8065.

3.1 In 2002, at the instance of the State, the District Inspector of Land Records made six divisions of the land each admeasuring 2411/2412 sq. mtrs. resulting in mutation entry no. 9000 being effected in the revenue records on 20.6.2002 which, came to be certified on 30.10.2002.

3.2 The writ applicant, purchased all the divided pieces of land. Pursuant to which, the revenue records came to be mutated and was duly certified. The land bearing survey nos. 250/1 to 250/4, was purchased by petitioner 12.5.2005 and entry to the said effect was also made in the revenue records bearing entry no. 9736. The land bearing survey no. 250/5, was purchased by the petitioner on 1.8.2005, resulting in mutation of the revenue records in entry no. 9822. Likewise, the petitioner, purchased the land bearing survey no. 250/6 on 7.11.2005 and mutation entry no. 9878 was carried out accordingly.

3.3 On account of entire land, not being possible to be cultivated; not being able to maintain the land by fighting against the powerful Bharwads who are said to have ravaged the crops through their cattle and the entire surrounding area having been constructed, resulted in petitioner seeking for conversion of the land for non- agricultural purposes. The Town Planning Scheme was also introduced in the adjacent area, which resulted in petitioner submitting an application under section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) seeking conversion of the subject land into non-agricultural purposes (hereinafter referred to as “N.A. permission”) vide application dated 6.1.2010 (at Annexure ‘G’). Said application came to be rejected on 23.3.2010 and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application no. 9045 of 2012 who, by impugned order allowed the petition and has directed the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of N.A. permission within a period of four weeks. Hence, the appeal.

4. This Court, while admitting the petition on 27.4.2015, had granted interim relief, staying the implementation, operation and execution of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.8.2014.

5. The thrust of the arguments of the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State, is to the effect that learned Single Judge, committed an error in directing the grant of N.A. permission in respect of the subject land by completely ignoring the fact that revenue authorities who are empowered to pass an order either granting or refusing the N.A. permission and as such, the impugned order directing grant of N.A. permission is liable to be set aside. It is also the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that powers which are exercisable by the