ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Special Secretary [Dispute] (Revenue Department), Gujarat, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. Mavivi/Bakhap/Amad/45/2016 as well as the order passed by the learned Collector dated 29.08.2016 in proceedings No. Sibi/Jamin-2/N.A./Ambali/S.R. No.2233/2015/135714. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the Collector, Ahmedabad to grant NA permission immediately to the petitioner in accordance with provision of Section

65 of Bombay Land Revenue Code.

2. In this petition, notice was issue on 25.01.2018, and thereafter, vide order dated 04.04.2018, rule was issued and hence the matter was listed for final hearing.

3. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Anshin Desai for the petitioner assisted by learned advocate Ms. Renu Nanavati and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondents.

4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition as stated in the petition are as under:-

4.1 The petitioner had purchased the agricultural land bearing block No.231 (old survey No.110/3/B) from the original land owners by registered sale deed dated 20.10.2006. In respect of the aforesaid revenue entry No.3630 was mutated in the name of petitioners and the same was certified on 27.04.2007 and since then land bearing block No.231 is running in the name of petitioners. According to the petitioners, even the possession of the land in question is also with the petitioners and there is no dispute regarding sale transaction, revenue entry or possession between the land owners and the present petitioners.

4.2 According to the petitioners, originally the sale deed in respect of land bearing block No.231 was in respect of area admeasuring as 0 acre 14 guntha but in re- survey the said land was shown as 0 acre 13 guntha as there was some deduction upon finalization of TP Scheme, and therefore, final plot No.73 admeasuring 921 sq. meters was alloted to the petitioners and since then they are in legal possession of the said final plot.

4.3 In the year 2015 on 20.10.2015, the petitioners preferred an application for conversion of land from agricultural to non agricultural purpose and all the concerned departments had given positive opinions including the Mamlatdar (Tenancy) and Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) and despite that the learned Collector, vide order dated 20.02.2016, rejected the petitioner’s application for NA permission on the ground that order regarding revenue entry No. 1265 is found to be improper.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioners preferred a Review Application before learned Collector on 05.05.2016 and ultimately, the Collector vide its order dated 29.08.2016, dismissed the Review Application preferred by the petitioner on the ground that name of tenant Jivabhai Lallubhai name is deleted vide entry No.1265 by the Mamlatdar and ALT, and as entry No.1265 was mutated on 12.09.1966. As per the Revenue Record the said tenant Jivabhai Lallubhai seems to have cultivated the land by “reet-4” from 1951-52 to 1957-57, “reet-3 from 1957-58 to 1970-71 and he was cultivating the land from 1971 to 1972 and 2002-04 to 2005 and his name was recorded as protected tenant as secondary right in the column of secondary right vide entry No.676 dated 16.03.1948, and therefore, in absence of there being any dispute between tenant Jivabhai Lallubhai and owner of the land Kankuben @ Madhukanta Shantabhai, the Mamlatdar and ALT has at relevant point of time has committed an error by deleting the name of Jivabhai Lallubhai as protected tenant, and therefore, in view of the aforesaid error committed, in the order dated 26.04.1961, the Revenue Entry No.1265 was mutated on 12.09.1966. The aforesaid order dated 26.04.1961 seems to be an erroneous order, and therefore, the same was required to be reviewed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeal), and therefore, the Review application preferred by the petitioner against t