Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The short facts of the case appear to be that one Satyanarayan Mandir Trust was holding the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 1810 at Mehsana. Over the said land, there was claim of Respondent No. 1 as tenant of the said land on the basis of the cultivation. It appears that on 20.4.1971 as per the petitioner, the rights of Tenancy were surrendered by Respondent No. 1 and his fore-fathers to Satyanarayan Mandir Trust and the entry for such purpose was also certified and accordingly Satyanarayan Mandir Trust became the absolute owner and occupier of the land in question. On 12.12.1983, an application was preferred by the said Satyanarayan Mandir Trust for non-agricultural use of the land to the competent authority. On 16.11.1989 the competent authority granted permission for use of the land for non-agricultural purpose to Satyanarayan Mandir Trust. Based on the said permission, under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) for non-agricultural use, Satyanarayan Mandir Trust sold the land to Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited on 16.3.1990 and such sale had taken place after requisite permission from the Charity Commissioner. The petitioner thereafter on 16.4.1990 purchased the said land from Satyanarayan Co-op. Society Limited by registered sale deed against the consideration of Rs. 20 lac. As per the petitioner, after the land was purchased, the petitioner Trust has constructed a temple, dharmashala and hostel buildings over the said land. Thereafter, on 21.3.1994, the Respondent No. 1 claiming the right as tenant in the land, which came to be surrendered as back as in the year 1971, preferred an application under Section 211 of the Code before the State Government against the order passed by the Collector dated 16.11.1989 for grant of permission for N.A. use. The pertinent aspect is that in the revision application under Section 211 of the Code, neither the petitioner Trust, nor its predecessor-in-title, Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited was joined as party. The Dy. Secretary of the State Government, thereafter, heard the revision and in spite of the factum of transfer of the land by Satyanarayan Mandir Trust to Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited, having brought to his notice, he proceeded to pass the order and has passed the impugned order dated 4.10.1994 - Annexure C. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present petition. Housing Society Limited, having brought to his notice, he proceeded to pass the order and has passed the impugned order dated 4.10.1994 - Annexure C. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present petition. 2. Heard Mr. Jitendra M. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.D. Shah, learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1, Respondent No. 2, though served, has chosen not to appear. I have also heard Mr. Raval, learned AGP for Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5. 3. It is apparent from the impugned order passed by the Dy. Secretary of the State Government that in the proceedings of the Revision, which came to be finalized by him, the Collector, Mehsana was joined as Opponent No. 1 and Satyanarayan Mandir Trust, through its Trustee, Mr. Pratapbhai Gordhandas Sheth, was joined as Opponent No. 2. Neither Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited, who had purchased the land from Satyanarayan Mandir Trust, nor the petitioner Trust, who purchased the land from Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited was joined as the Opponent in the revisional proceedings. The pertinent aspect is that in the impugned order at Para 3 the Dy. Secretary of the State Government has recorded the written submission made on behalf of Opponent No. 2 therein namely; Satyanarayan Mandir Trust through its Advocate, Shri BBarot, in which it was stated that the disputed land has been sold to Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited, but construction was not made and one temple was constructed. Therefore, the factum of transfer of land by Satyanarayan Mandir Trust to Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited was on record and was brought to the notice of the Dy. Secretary of the State Government. It also appears that vide Registered Sale Deed dated 16.4.1990, the petitioner Trust has purchased the land in question from Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited against consideration of Rs. 20 lac. The revenue entry was mutated in the revenue record based on the said sale deed vide entry dated 8.6.1990 and the copy of the said revenue entry is produced at page 23-24. Since then, the land was in possession of the petitioner and for such purpose the petitioner has produced Village Form 7/12. Therefore, when in the revenue record the land was transferred on the name of the petitioner Trust from Satyanarayan Co-op. Since then, the land was in possession of the petitioner and for such purpose the petitioner has produced Village Form 7/12. Therefore, when in the revenue record the land was transferred on the name of the petitioner Trust from Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited, it was required for the competent officer of the State Government exercising the revisional power to hear the petitioner and then to pass the order. 4. Neither the petitioner, nor the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner; Satyanarayan Mandir Trust was heard before passing the impugned order, hence it can be said that the impugned order is ex facie in breach of the principles of natural justice and, therefor, would be void qua the rights of the petitioner being the owner of the land at the relevant point of time. 5. It has also come on record that one temple is constructed as stated by the learned Counsel for Satyanarayan Mandir Trust. The contention of the petitioner is that it has constructed the temple and it is further contended by the petitioner that it has also constructed hostel and invested huge amount over the land for construction. Therefore, it appears that without verification about the position of the land on site, the power has been exercised by the Dy. Secretary of the State Government. It appears that neither any attempt is made on his part to get the report of the Collector about the existence of the revenue record, the construction, if any, made over the land or not. It deserves to be recorded that if the land is converted into N.A. and parties have altered their rights in bonafide on the basis of such N.A. order, the said order cannot be set at naught in revisional jurisdiction without considering the aspects of prejudice, which may be caused on account of the cancellation of N.A., more particularly when the use is already changed from agricultural to non-agricultural and the occupier of the land in bonafide has made huge investment. If such exercise of power is considered on the basis of reasonableness, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be said that the power is exercised unreasonably and even the initiation of the revisional power is after a period of four years. Therefore, the revisional power appears to have been exercised beyond reasonable period. 6. It also appears from the reasons recorded by the Dy. Therefore, the revisional power appears to have been exercised beyond reasonable period. 6. It also appears from the reasons recorded by the Dy. Secretary of the State Government in the impugned order that he has been guided by two circumstances; one is for the status of the applicant as tenant of the land and the proceedings arising therefrom and the another is the transfer of the land by Satyanarayan Mandir Trust, the agriculturist to Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited, non-agriculturist. On the basis of aforesaid two considerations, the revisional powers appear to have been exercised. It further appears that as the rights of the parties existed when the Dy. Secretary of the State Government passed the order, there was no prohibitory order of any competent forum under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tenancy Act’) and, therefore, if the rights were to be considered as per the said Act, the surrender had taken place, though may be the subject matter of the appeal before the Dy. Collector or any other authority. The State Government exercising the power under the Code could consider the prohibitory order passed by the competent authority, if any, against the owner of the land, but it could not observe further as if the implementing machinery of the Tenancy Act. Further if the land is already converted into N.A. use the restriction under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act would cease to operate and consequently the transfer could not be said to be hit by the provisions of the Tenancy Act from Satyanarayan Mandir Trust to Satyanarayan Co-op. Housing Society Limited, more particularly when there was no prohibitory order against operation of permission for N.A. use. Therefore, if the reasons recorded by the Dy. Secretary are taken into consideration in exercise of the revisional power, it appears that the State Government has exceeded in exercise of its jurisdiction by taking into consideration the circumstances beyond the provisions of the Code and the circumstances, which could not be said to be germane to the exercise of the power. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the State Government cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hence, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the State Government cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hence, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.