R. C. MANKAD, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER which is a partnership firm has filed this petition challenging the order Annexure H dated 12/01/1987 passed by the State Government cancelling permission for non-agricultural use of land granted by Taluka Development Officer Halol in respect of Survey Nos. 113/1 and 55 of village Penclav (hereinafter referred to as the land) Taluka Halol District Panchmahals. 2 One Mulchand Hirabhai Parikh who was the occupant of the land made an application for permission to Use the land for nonagricultural purposes to the Taluka Panchayat of Halol. The Taluka Development Officer of the Taluka Panchayat Halol granted such permission by his order Annexure A dated 17/12/1981 The petitioner purchased the land for consideration of Rs. 48 257 from Mulchand Hirabhai Parikh under a Registered sale deed dated 29/01/1982 The land was mutated to the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. On 4/03/1986 the State Government issued notice Annexure C calling upon the original occupant Mulchand Hirabhai Parikh to show cause why the permission for non-agricultural use of land should not be cancelled. It appears that the original occupant submitted reply to show cause notice contending to the effect that there was no reasonable ground to cancel the permission for non-agricultural use of the land. The State Government however by its impugned order Annexure H cancelled the permission for non-agricultural use of the land. Petitioner has therefore approached this Court by way of this petition. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the original occupant Mulchand Hirabhai Parikh was holding the land which was agricultural in character and therefore it could not have been used for any purpose other than agriculture except with the permission of the Collector under Sec. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (Code for short ). That section insofar as it is relevant for our purposes reads as under:"65 Any occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture is entitled by himself his servants tenant-agents or other legal representatives to erect farm building construct wells or tanks or make any other improvements thereon for the better cultivation of the land or its more convenient use for the purpose aforesaid. BUT if any occupant wishes to use his holding or any part thereof for any other purpose the Collectors permission shall in the first place be applied for by the occupant ". BUT if any occupant wishes to use his holding or any part thereof for any other purpose the Collectors permission shall in the first place be applied for by the occupant ". The Collector on receipt of such application. (A) shall send to the applicant a written acknowledgement of its receipt and (B) may after due inquiry either grant or refuse the permission applied for;provided that where the Collector fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted". It will be seen that under the aforesaid section power is conferred on the Collector to grant permission to the occupant of the land for making non-agricultural use of land which is agricultural in character. ( 3 ) SECTION 157 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 (Panchayats Act for short) insofar as it is relevant for our purposes reads as under:157 (s) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force the State Government may subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose transfer by an order published in the Official Gazette to a District Panchayat any such powers functions and duties relating to any matter as are exercised or performed by the State Government or any Officer of Government under any enactment which the State Legislature is competent to enact or otherwise in the executive power of the State and appear to relate to matters arising within a District and to be of an administrative character and shall can such transfer; allot to the District Panchayat such fund and personnel as may be necessary to enable the District Panchayat to exercise the powers and discharge the functions and duties so transferred (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-sec (1) the State Government may transfer to the District Panchayats such powers functions and duties as are exercised or performed by the following Department of the State namely: (1) Agriculture: (2) Land Department : (3) On the transfer of any powers functions and duties under sub-secs. (1) and (2) the District Panchayats shall if the State Government so directs and with the previous approval of the State Government may delegate to any Panchayat subordinate to it any of the functions powers and duties so transferred and allot to such Panchayat such fund and staff as may be necessary to enable the Panchayat to exercise the powers and discharge the functions and duties so delegated"it is not in dispute that in exercise of the power conferred under Sec. 157 of the Panchayats Act the State Government transferred to the District Panchayat the powers functions and duties of the State Government and its officers as specified in the schedule thereto. By its Resolution dated 25/03/1963 all the powers functions and duties conferred on the Collector under Secs. 59 65 and 66 of the Code are transferred to the District Panchayats. By another Resolution of even date the State Government directed that out of the powers functions and duties transferred to the District Panchayats under the aforesaid Resolutions the District Panchayats shall delegate to the subordinate Panchayats the powers functions and duties as specified in the statement appended thereto. By the said Resolution the Government was pleased to direct that out of the powers functions and duties transferred to the District Panchayats the latter should delegate to the Taluka Panchayats the powers functions and duties insofar as Class II villages as per classification made in Rule 81 of the Land Revenue Rules 1921 were concerned. It is not disputed that the land in question is in a village which is Class II village. One of the powers which the District Panchayat of Panchmahals had to delegate to the Taluka Panchayat was power regarding grant of permission for non-agricultural use of land under Sec. 65 of the Code. Therefore the District Panchayat of Panchmahals was under obligation to delegate to the Taluka Panchayat of Halol such power under Sec. 65 of the Code. ( 4 ) THE Gujarat Land Revenue Rules 1972 which were brought into effect on 1/09/1976 as amended by the Amendment Rules 1977 made provision for determination of rates of non-agricultural assessment. Under Rule 81 villages towns and cities were divided into Classes A B C D and E and areas adjoining such villages town and cities were classified as Class I II and III. Under Rule 81 villages towns and cities were divided into Classes A B C D and E and areas adjoining such villages town and cities were classified as Class I II and III. Villages with a population upto 5000 were placed in Class E. There is no dispute that the land in question is in a village which is in Class E under this Rule. By a Resolution dated 25/09/1978 in partial modification of the Government Resolution dated 25/03/1963 the State Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it by sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 157 of the Panchayats Act directed that out of the powers functions and duties transferred to the District Panchayats under Government Notification dated 16/07/1971 and 8/02/1977 the District Panchayats shall delegate to the subordinate Panchayats the powers functions and duties specified thereunder. By this Resolution the State Government had desired that the powers functions and duties under Sec. 65 of the Code transferred to the District Panchayats under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 157 of the Panchayats Act should be transferred to Taluka Panchayats so far as Class B and E villages and towns as per classification under Rule 81 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules 1972 are concerned. The District Panchayat of Panchmahals delegated these powers to the Taluka Panchayats in the District by a Resolution dated 29/03/1979 ( 5 ) HOWEVER before the District Panchayat of Panchmahals delegated the powers to the Taluka Panchayats under its Resolution dated 29/03/1979 as aforesaid the Taluka Panchayat of Halol by its Resolution passed on 27/12/1978 directed to delegate the power conferred under Resolution of the State Government dated 25/09/1978 (adverted to above) to the Taluka Development Officer for administrative convenience. As stated above the Taluka Development Officer of Taluka Panchayat of Halol by his order dated 17/12/1981 granted permission for non-agricultural use of the land to the original occupant Mulchand Hirabhai Parikh. The view that the State Government has taken is that since the District Panchayat of Panchmahals had passed resolution on 29/03/1979 delegating powers to the Taluka Panchayats the Taluka Panchayat of Halol could not have delegated powers to the Taluka Development Officer on 27/12/1978 It was observed that there was no delegation of powers to the Taluka Development Officer by the Taluka Panchayat of Halol subsequent to the Resolution dated 29/03/1979 of District Panchayat of Panchmahals. The Taluka Development Officer had therefore acted without authority and jurisdiction in granting permission for non-agricultural use of the land on 17/12/1981 as stated above. The State Government was therefore pleased to hold that the order passed by the Taluka Development Officer granting such permission was a nullity and deserved to be set aside. On merits also the State Government found that the permission for non-agricultural use of the land could not have been granted. Under the circumstances the State Government cancelled the order passed by the Taluka Development Officer granting such permission. ( 6 ) IT is common ground that there is no provision in the Panchayats Act under which the Taluka Panchayat can delegate its powers and functions to the Taluka Development Officer. There is therefore no question of the Taluka Panchayat of Halol delegating powers to the Taluka Development Officer Halol. The question which is required to be considered is whether the Taluka Development Officer could have acted on behalf of the Taluka Panchayat and granted permission for non-agricultural use of land. In other words the question is whether power to grant such permission vests in the Taluka Development Officer. Section 123 of the Panchayats Act lays down powers and functions of Taluka Development Officer. This Section reads as under:"123 (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act the executive power of a Taluka Panchayat for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act shall vest in Taluka Development Officer who shall subject to the orders if any of the President or of the Taluka Panchayat as the case may be: (A) perform all the functions and exercise all the powers specifically imposed or conferred upon him by or under any law for the time being in force; and (B) lay down the duties of all Officers and servants of the Taluka Panchayat. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder the Taluka Development Officer (a) shall be entitled to (I) attend the meetings of the Taluka Panchayat or any of its committees; (III) call for any information return statement account or report from any Officer or servant of or holding Office under the Taluka Panchayat; (IV) grant leave of absence for a period not exceeding two months to such class of Officers as may be prescribed by rule; (IV) call for an explanation from any Officer or servant of or holding office under the Taluka Panchayat; (B) shall subject to the control of the Taluka Panchayat discharge duties and perform functions in respect of matters which by or under this Act are not expressly imposed or conferred on any committee presiding Officer or any Officer of the Taluka Panchayat; (C) shall appoint such class of Officers and servants as may be prescribed; (D) shall supervise and control the execution of all activities of the Taluka Panchayat; (E) shall take necessary measures for the speedy execution of all works development schemes of the Taluka Panchayat; (F) shall have custody of all papers and documents connected with the proceedings or meetings of the Taluka Panchayat and of its committees; (G) shall assess and give his opinion confidentially every year on the work of the Officer holding office under the Taluka Panchayat; forward them to such authorities as may be prescribed by the State Government and lay down the procedure for writing such reports about the work of officers and servants under the Taluka Panchayat; (H) shall draw and disburse money out of the fund; (I) shall exercise supervision and control over the acts of Officers and servants holding Office under the Taluka Panchayat in matters of executive administration and those relating to accounts and records of the Taluka Panchayat; and (J) shall exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Subject to the other provisions of this Act the Taluka Development Officer shall be under the general control of the Taluka Panchayat". ( 7 ) IT appears from sub-sec. (3) Subject to the other provisions of this Act the Taluka Development Officer shall be under the general control of the Taluka Panchayat". ( 7 ) IT appears from sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 123 that the executive power of a Taluka Panchayat for the purpose of carrying out the pro visions of the Panchayats Act vests in the Taluka Development Officer Under Sec. 157 (1) of the Panchayats Act the State Government may subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose transfer by an order published in the Official Gazette to a District Panchayat any such powers functions and duties relating to any matter as are exercised or performed by the State Government or any Officer of Government under any enactment which the State Legislature is competent to enact or otherwise in the executive power of the State which appears to relate to matters arising in the District and are administrative in character. It is by virtue of this power conferred on the State Government that the powers conferred on the Collector under Sec. 65 of the Code were transferred initially to the District Panchayat and later on under the order passed by the State Government under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 157 of the Panchayats Act to the Taluka Panchayats. Power under Sec 65 of the Code conferred on the Collector is an executive power or a power of an administrative character. It is therefore that it was transferred or delegated to the District Panchayats and Taluka Panchayats. Therefore when Taluka Panchayat exercises power under Sec. 65 of the Code it is an executive or administrative power. Once this becomes clear there is no doubt that such power vests in Taluka Development Officer under Sec. 123 (1) of the Panchayats Act. But apart from that it is not disputed that power under Sec. 65 of the Code has not been conferred on any committee or Presiding Officer or any Officer of the Taluka Panchayat under clause (b) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 123 of the Panchayats Act. Thus Taluka Development Officer will be entitled to exercise power under Sec. 65 of the Code by virtue of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 123. Therefore whether the power conferred under Sec. 65 of the Code is an executive or administrative or not the Taluka Development Officer has power to act under this Section. Thus Taluka Development Officer will be entitled to exercise power under Sec. 65 of the Code by virtue of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 123. Therefore whether the power conferred under Sec. 65 of the Code is an executive or administrative or not the Taluka Development Officer has power to act under this Section. Therefore in any view of the matter after delegation of power to the Taluka Panchayat of Halol by the District Panchayat the Taluka Development Officer had power to grant permission for non-agricultural use of land under Sec. 65 of the Code. As pointed out above the District Panchayat of Panchmahals delegated powers to the Taluka Panchayat by its Resolution dated 29/03/1979 Permission for non-agricultural use of the land was granted by the Taluka Development Officer on 17/12/1981 Therefore when the Taluka Development Officer passed the order he had power to do so under Sec. 65 of the Code read with Sec. 123 of the Panchayats Act. The State Government has completely overlooked the provision of Sec. 123 of the Panchayats Act while holding that Taluka Development Officer has acted without authority or jurisdiction in passing the order granting permission for non-agricultural use of land. ( 8 ) IT was urged on behalf of respondents that the petitioner had not contended before the State Government that by virtue of provisions contained in Sec. 123 of the Panchayats Act the Taluka Development Officer had power to grant permission under Sec. 65 of the Code. Since the petitioner had failed to raise this point before the State Government it can not be allowed to do so for the first time before this Court in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution. It is further urged that even if the petitioner is permitted to raise this point the proper course to adopt is to remand the matter to the State Government for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It was urged that since the petitioner had failed to raise the above contention before the State Government the State Government had no occasion to deal with that contention. Therefore the matter should be remanded to the State Government as suggested above. I do not find any force in the above contention raised by the respondents The point which is raised by the respondents (sic petitioner) is a pure point of law. Therefore the matter should be remanded to the State Government as suggested above. I do not find any force in the above contention raised by the respondents The point which is raised by the respondents (sic petitioner) is a pure point of law. No prejudice will be caused to the State Government by permitting the petitioner to raise this point for the first time in this Court. Further the provisions of Sec. 123 being clear in my opinion no purpose would be served in remanding the matter to the State Government and delay its disposal further. As already held above the Taluka Development Officer has power to grant permission for non-agricultural use of the land under Sec. 65 of the Code. ( 9 ) THE next question is whether the petitioner is not entitled to grant of permission for non-agricultural use of the land on merits As pointed out above permission for non-agricultural use of the land was granted on 17/12/1981 to the original occupant Mulchand Hirabhai Parikh. After the permission was granted this original occupant sold the land to the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 29/01/1982 The petitioner had thereafter put up construction on the land at a huge cost. It is stated that a factory had been put up on the land It is after a lapse of about four and half years that the State Government issued notice calling upon the persons concerned to show cause why permission for non-agricultural use of land should not be cancelled. There is no explanation as to why there has been delay in exercising revisional powers. Facts in the instant case are similar to the facts which obtained in Bipinchandra G. Dalal and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr 1987 (2) GLH 127 : ( 1987 (2) GLR 971 ). In that case on similar facts this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Raghav Natha 1969 GLR 992 held to the effect that revisional powers could not be exercised after expiry of reasonable period. In the instant case it could not be said that the State Government sought to exercise revisional powers within reasonable time. The State Government could not have cancelled the permission granted under Sec. 65 of the Code after a lapse of about four and half years. In the instant case it could not be said that the State Government sought to exercise revisional powers within reasonable time. The State Government could not have cancelled the permission granted under Sec. 65 of the Code after a lapse of about four and half years. Therefore without entering into merits of the question whether or not grant of permission for non-agricultural use was proper or justified it must be held that the impugned order cancelling the permission granted under Sec. 65 of the Code cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure H dated 12/01/1987 is quashed and set aside and the order passed by Taluka Development Officer Halol granting permission for non-agricultural use of the land under Sec. 65 of the Code is restored. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. .