R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) MRS. KETTY A. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Hukum singh, learned counsel for the respondents - state. ( 2 ) BY this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge order dtd. 19/5/1995 passed by the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, surat in Case No. 42 of 1990 holding that the land was liable to be resumed by the state for its management under sec. 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1948 ("tenancy Act" for short ). ( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the petitioners are owners of land of Survey No. 86 admeasuring 2. 59 Hectors of Village Bhimpore, Taluka choryasi, District Surat. They made an application to the authority for grant of permission to use the property for non- agricultural purpose. The said permission, commonly known as N. A. Permission, was accorded and granted in favour of the petitioners on 27/4/1992 by Surat Urban development Authority ("suda" for short) and a resolution was also made by the panchayat in favour of the petitioners. ( 4 ) ON 15/6/1994, respondent No. 2 - dy. Collector, Choryasi Prant, issued notices to the petitioners to show cause that why the land be not taken in management by the Government, as it remained uncultivated for a period of two years and more. The petitioners filed their reply in July, 1994 and showed cause to the said Dy. Collector that as the land use was converted, the land could not be put under cultivation. The said dy. Collector, after hearing the parties, ordered that the management of the land be taken in favour of the Government for a period of ten years. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed a Revision application before the Collector, who returned the Revision Memo observing that he had no power to entertain the revision petition against the order passed by the dy. Collector under sec. 65 of the Tenancy act, against which, the petitioners are before this Court. ( 5 ) VARIOUS contentions have been raised against the said Dy. Collector stating inter-alia that the very same Dy. Collector on earlier occasion held that after grant of n. A. Permission, provisions of sec. 65 of the tenancy Act would not apply to the land but the said Dy. ( 5 ) VARIOUS contentions have been raised against the said Dy. Collector stating inter-alia that the very same Dy. Collector on earlier occasion held that after grant of n. A. Permission, provisions of sec. 65 of the tenancy Act would not apply to the land but the said Dy. Collector, in case of the petitioners, for the reasons best known to him, passed an order contrary to his earlier view. ( 6 ) MRS. K. A. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Sec. 65 of the tenancy Act would apply to the land which is agricultural land and remains uncultivable for two years or more. According to her, if the land s character and status is changed from agricultural to non-agricultural, then, the provisions of sec. 65 of the Tenancy Act would not apply. ( 7 ) MR. HUKUM Singh, learned A. G. P. for State though contested the matter, but was unable to convince me that Sec. 65 of the Tenancy Act would still apply to the land, character of which stands changed from cultivable to non-agricultural land. ( 8 ) SEC. 65 of the Tenancy Act applies in a case where it appears to the State government that for any two consecutive years any land has remained uncultivated or full and efficient use of the land has not been made for the purpose of agricultural etc. Once, permission for non-agricultural use is granted then, the land would lose its character and such land cannot be treated to be agricultural land, land on which agricultural operation an be performed. The order passed by the learned Dy. Collector is patently illegal, it deserves to and is accordingly quashed. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. No costs.