JUDGMENT : J.B.PARDIWALA, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original writ applicant of a writ application and is directed against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the Special Civil Application No.9894 of 2016, whereby the learned Single Judge thought fit to reject the writ application. 2. The facts, giving rise to this appeal, may be summarized as under; 2.1 The appellant herein filed the Special Civil Application No.9894 of 2016 with the following prayers; “(A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.2.2016 passed by Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.6 of 2010 in the interest of justice. (B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 23.2.2016 passed by Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.6 of 2010 in the interest of justice. (C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2.2. One Dhirajlal Maganlal Mali and others were the original owners of a parcel of land bearing Block No.40/1 admeasuring 29441 square meters, situated at the Village: Asnabad, Ta: Olpad, District: Surat. The original owners applied for the non-agricultural use permission (NA) with respect to the subject land, referred to above, to the extent of 5278.61 square meters for the purpose of CNG Filling Station. The application, seeking NA Permission, was addressed to the Taluka Panchayat/TDO under the provisions of Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The application was filed on 3rd November, 2008. The application preferred by the original owners, seeking N.A. Permission, came to be allowed by the TDO, Olpad vide order dated 24th February, 2009. Thus, the N.A. Permission came to be granted in favour of the original owners subject to the conditions as imposed in the N.A. order, Annexure-B to the petition. The order, granting N.A Permission, reads thus; “No.T.P./Revenue/N.A./Rg.No.5/V/09 Taluka Panchayat Office (Revenue Br.) Olpad. Date : 24-25/02/2009 Read :- 1. Thus, the N.A. Permission came to be granted in favour of the original owners subject to the conditions as imposed in the N.A. order, Annexure-B to the petition. The order, granting N.A Permission, reads thus; “No.T.P./Revenue/N.A./Rg.No.5/V/09 Taluka Panchayat Office (Revenue Br.) Olpad. Date : 24-25/02/2009 Read :- 1. Application dated 3.11.2008 for obtaining N.A. Permission of agricultural land bearing survey No.40/1, Block No.40 of village Asnabad, Taluka : Olpad, District : Surat for commercial purpose (GNG Filling Station) tendered by Shri Dhirajlal Maganlal Mali & others, residents of Olpad, District : Surat, and letter dated 29.01.2009. (2) Letters of this Office bearing No. T.P./Revenue/ N.A/ 10617-30/V/08, dated 11.11.2008 and same number letters dated 10.11.08, 7.11.08, 16.12.08, 3.1.09, 12.1.09, 19.1.09 and 21.1.2009. (3) Letter of Circle Inspector, Olpad Prant, Olpad Taluka Panchayat bearing No. T.P./Revenue/N.A/ 329/ V/08, dated 12.12.2008 and other letters of same number (4) Letter of Collector, Surat bearing No. A/GMP/Rg No.560/Vashi-3010/08, Surat, dated 19.11.2008 (5) Letter of Collector, Surat bearing No LAQ/Vashi-2437/08 SR 614/08, dated 2.12.2008 (6) Letter of Deputy Collector, Olpad prant, Surat bearing No. GNT/Rg. No.43/Vashi-7701/08, dated 2.12.2008. (7) Letter of Competent Officer and Additional Collector, ULC, Surat, bearing No.ULC/N.A./Asnabad/Vashi-1199/ 08 dated 24.12.08 (8) Letter of Additional Chitnish to Collector (Magi), Surat No. MG/Petrol Pump/N.A./Vashi/49/08, District Magistrate, Surat Office, Surat, dated 7.1.09. (9) Letter of Municipal Director, Surat No. BP/ Asnabad/Olpad/Surat/249, dated 24.10.08 and Letter No. 2420, dated 19.11.2008. (10) Letter of Executive Engineer, ((O & M) SOUTH Gujarat Vij Co., Surat (Rural) No. SUDI/(O & M)/ Tek/2008/5796, dated 18.11.2008. (11) Letter of Executive Engineer, K.J.K. Canal Division, Surat No. KJKNV/PB-3/N.A./Opinion/Vashi/5195, dated 28.11.2008. (12) Letter of Executive Engineer, Drainage Division No.2, Surat No. D.D.2/PB-1/Agricultural land into non- agricultural land/2951 of 2008, dated 2.12.2008 (13) Letter of Executive Engineer, Surat (R & B) Division No.2, Surat No. CB/N.A/4342/2008, dated 15.12.2008 and letter No. CB/N.A./565/2009, dated 17.2.2009. (14) Letter of Chief District Health Officer, Surat No. D.P./A.Sh/N.A/Health Division/Opinion/Asnabad/ 16805/CNG Station/Block No. 40, dated 21.11.2008. (15) Letter of Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling), Taluka : Choryasi, District: Surat No. Ceiling/N.A./opinion/ Asnabad/Olpad/Vashi. 2169, dated 29.11.2008. (16) Letter of Mamlatdar, Olpad No. L.N.D/Vashi-2941/ 2008, dated 28.11.2008. (17) Certificate dated 5.12.2008 issued by Talati-cum-Mantri, Olpad Gram Panchayat Office, Taluka : Olpad, District : Surat. (18) Letter of D.G.M. Incharge, LAQ, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Ankleshwar No. ANK/LAQ/NOC/ Asnabad/2009/648, dated 19.1.2009. 2169, dated 29.11.2008. (16) Letter of Mamlatdar, Olpad No. L.N.D/Vashi-2941/ 2008, dated 28.11.2008. (17) Certificate dated 5.12.2008 issued by Talati-cum-Mantri, Olpad Gram Panchayat Office, Taluka : Olpad, District : Surat. (18) Letter of D.G.M. Incharge, LAQ, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Ankleshwar No. ANK/LAQ/NOC/ Asnabad/2009/648, dated 19.1.2009. (19) Letter of General Manager, GEL India, Hajira, Surat No. GEL/India/CAN/08, dated 25.11.2008. (20) Letter of Manager, CVL, GEL India, Limited, Vadodara No. GEL/VDA/Pipeline/2008/517/2008, dated 27.12.2008. (21) Government Resolution of Revenue Department No. JPV/1079/2064/K, dated 17.07.80 and BKP/1080/ 59530/K, dated 27.7.80 and Resolution No. BKP/1006/ 425/K, dated 1.7.2008. (22) Resolution No.5, dated 29.01.2009 passed by the Executive Committee of Olpad Taluka Panchayat. (23) Order passed on the Noting of this Office. (24) Challan No. 497, dated 20.02.2009 by which amount of Rs. 31672/- paid towards conversion tax. (25) Receipt No.53, dated 20.02.2009 for payment of Rs. 4290/- made to Talati-cum-Mantri, Olpad, Taluka : Olpad, District : Surat towards Special Act and penalty. ORDER :- The application dated 3.11.2008 tendered by Shri Dhirajlal Maganlal Mali and others, residents of Olpad, Taluka :Olpad, District : Surat, for obtaining N.A. permission in respect of land bearing survey No.40/1, Block No.40 of village Asnabad, Taluka : Olpad, Distict : Suratfor commercial purpose (CNG Filling Station) has been received on 3.11.2008 and a receipt dated 4-10/11/2008 has been issued to the applicants. Read and considered the Government Resolution of Revenue Department No. JPV/1079/2064/K, dated 17.07.1980 and No. BKP/1080/59530/K, dated 27.07.1980, Resolution indicated in Preface at serial No. 21 and the Rules pertaining thereof. Looking to the opinions given by the Collector, Surat, Deputy Collector, OlpadPrant, Surat and Mamlatdar, Olpad, District : Surat, revenue title of the land in question is clear. The Circle Inspector, OlpadTalukaPanchayat has informed/stated that there is a construction of 186.88 sq.mts, as per Plan, but without permission. The Town Planner, Surat has opined/ recommended to grant N.A. permission in respect of 5278.61 sq.mts of land out of 29441.00 sq.mts. of Block No.40 for commercial purpose (CNG Filling Station). Taken into consideration the said opinion, but, in view of the provisions of Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code, N.A. permission cannot be granted. The Town Planner, Surat has opined/ recommended to grant N.A. permission in respect of 5278.61 sq.mts of land out of 29441.00 sq.mts. of Block No.40 for commercial purpose (CNG Filling Station). Taken into consideration the said opinion, but, in view of the provisions of Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code, N.A. permission cannot be granted. However, the Executive Committee, OlpadTalukaPanchayat vide its Resolution No.5 dated 29.01.2009,in view of Government Resolution of Revenue Department No. JPV/1079/2064/K, dated 17.07.1980 and Resolution No. BKP/1080/59530, dated 27.07.1980 and Resolution No. BKP/1006/425/K, dated 01/07/2008, subject to strict compliance of the conditions stipulated in Appendix-4 to the said Resolution as well as further conditions mentioned hereinbelow, has granted N.A. permission in respect of 5278.61 sq.mts of land out of 29441.00 sq.mts of land of Survey No.40/1 – Block No.40 of village Asnabad, Taluka : Olpad, District : Surat for commercial (CNG Filling Station) purpose, with a condition to pay special tax prevailing in the village at the rate of 0.15 ps. of 5278.61 sq.mts of land out of 29441.00 sq.mts of land as well as local fund/ education cess as per rulesfrom 1.8.2008. Further, as a construction is made on 186.88 sq.mts of land without obtaining N.A. Permission / permission, the applicants shall have to pay penalty for 40 times of yearly assessment of non-agricultural land for unauthorized construction made on 186.88 sq.mts of land and the said unauthorized construction shall have to be got regularized. Since it has been resolved by the Executive Committee to grant N.A. permission in respect of 5278.61 sq. mts of land out of 29441.00 sq.mts of land for commercial (CNG Filling Station) purpose under Section 66 of the Land Revenue Code, as per the said Resolution, the applicants/landowners have paid the amount of conversion tax and special tax and penalty and original Challan and Receipt thereof have been produced. Therefore, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 66 of the Land Revenue Code and the Rules thereof, N.A. permission is granted to Shri DhirajlalMaganlal Mali and others, resident of Olpad, Taluka : Olpad, District : Surat in respect of land admeasuring 5278.61 sq.mts out of 29441.00 sq.mts of land of Survey No.40/1 – Block No.40 of village Asnabad, Taluka : Olpad, District : Surat for commercial (CNG Filling Station) purpose, subject to payment of special tax at the rate of 0.15 ps. prevailing in the village for the land admeasuring 5278.61 sq.mts. as well as local fund / education cess etc. payable as per rules from 01.08.2008, with the conditions stipulated in Appendix-4 to the Government Resolution of Revenue Department indicated in Preface at serial No.21 and further conditions mentioned hereinbelow and strict compliance thereof. The N.A. permission for 5278.61 sq.mts of land out of 29441.00 sq.mts for commercial (CNG Filling Station) purpose has been granted with a further condition to get the unauthorized construction made without obtaining permission on 186.88 sq.mts of land regularized. CONDITIONS :- (1) Before commencing/making the construction of C.N.G.Filling Station (Pump) on the land of N.A. permission, permission of District Magistrate, Surat was required to be obtained and then further proceedings were required to be done. However, the applicants without obtaining N.A. permission, made construction on 186.88 sq.mts of land unauthorizedly. Therefore, the applicants shall obtain retrospective N.A. permission for 5278.61 sq.mts of land out of 29441.00 sq.mts along with the unauthorized construction from the District Magistrate, Surat, otherwise the applicants would be liable. (2) The applicants shall obtain permission / No Objection Certificates from Reliance Industries, Mora, Surat, District Industries Centre, Surat and Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Surat as well as Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. (3) 1 c.m.= 500 meters Map of Asnabad village called for / demanded by DGM Incharge LAQ, Oil & Natural Gas Co., Ankleshwar – Bharuch vide his letter dated 19.1.2009 should be sent to him. Looking to the copy of 7/12 Extract for verifying the situation of the land in question as on 3.7.2008, there is a right of use of O.N.G.C. pipeline and land admeasuring 1113.00 sq.mts out of the land in question has been acquired for ONGC pipeline (right of use of land) as well as for drilling purpose and, therefore, construction of CNG Filling Station (Pump) shall be made after leaving margin from the aforesaid acquired land for the use of ONGC. Before making construction of CNG Filling Station on the land in question and also for the construction already made, opinion / certificate of Oil & Natural Gas Co., Ankleshwar-Bharuch would be required to be obtained. Before making construction of CNG Filling Station on the land in question and also for the construction already made, opinion / certificate of Oil & Natural Gas Co., Ankleshwar-Bharuch would be required to be obtained. The construction shall be made in presence of the representative of the Company after marking on the spot by taking care that no any damage is caused to the gas pipeline or the spot of drilling, and to maintain the distance as per the rules of ONGC and to observe the rules strictly for the proposed construction, otherwise the applicants would be liable. (4) Manager (Civil), GEL India Limited, Vadodara has issued certificate subject to strict/compulsory compliance of the conditions mentioned in his letter dated 27.12.2008 (a copy of the letter is enclosed), as gas is passing through the pipeline with great high pressure and therefore, the applicants/ landowners should be aware of the risky situation likely to be created due to gas leakage. Therefore, before commencement of construction, GEL India Ltd., Vadodara should be informed. The construction is to be made after leaving minimum 10 (ten) meters of distance from R.O.U. Therefore, opinion of GEL India Ltd. regarding leaving of marginal distance from the pipeline should be obtained. The construction should be made after getting marking on the spot in presence of the representative of GEL India Limited. The construction should be made by the applicants after obtaining permission of the said Company, also for the construction already made. The applicants shall observe/comply with all the conditions mentioned in the letter strictly, otherwise the applicants would be liable. (5) The applicants shall comply with/ observe all the conditions mentioned in the letter (enclosed) of the Executive Engineer, Surat (R & B), Division No.2, Surat strictly, otherwise the applicants would be liable. (6) The applicants shall comply with / observe all the conditions mentioned in the letter dated 24.10.2008 (enclosed) of Town Planner, Surat strictly. (7) The construction shall be made after leaving / maintaining adequate distance as per the extant rules of the Company as mentioned in the letter (enclosed) dated 18.11.2008 of the Executive Engineer (O &M), South Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Surat (Rural), otherwise the applicants would be liable. (7) The construction shall be made after leaving / maintaining adequate distance as per the extant rules of the Company as mentioned in the letter (enclosed) dated 18.11.2008 of the Executive Engineer (O &M), South Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Surat (Rural), otherwise the applicants would be liable. (8) The applicants shall observe / comply with strictly all the conditions mentioned in the letter dated 28/11/2008 bearing No. K.N.V./PB-3/non-agricultural opinion/Vashi/5195 (letter enclosed) of Executive Engineer, K.J.K. Canal Division, Surat, otherwise the applicants would be liable. (9) The conditions mentioned in the letter No.2952, dated 2.12.2008 (enclosed) of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division No.2, Surat. (10) The applicants shall observe/comply with all the conditions mentioned in the letter No. 16905, dated 21.11.2008 (enclosed) of Chief District Health Officer, Surat. (11) For constructing CNG Filling Station in the land in question, `No Objection Certificates’ of District Magistrate, Surat and Superintendent of Police, Surat District shall be obtained. Certificate with regard to approved site plan and sanctioned plan shall be obtained and then to obtain necessary licence/permit in the names of the applicants compulsorily from Central Government Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization (P.E.S.O.), Nagpur for constructing CNG Filling Station in the land in question, otherwise the applicants would be responsible/liable. (12) CNG Filling Station shall be commenced in the land in question only after obtaining all necessary `No Objection Certificates’/ permission from all the concerned departments / offices of the Government. (14) The applicants shall strictly observe/comply with all the conditions stipulated in Appendix-4 to the Government Resolution of Revenue Department No. BKP/1006/425/K, dated 1/7/2008, failing which, legal proceedings shall be initiated by the competent officer for breach of conditions. 1. Original Marking/commentary should be indicated in the Measurement Sheet issued by the District Inspector Land Records. The plan and layout plan produced should be got approved by the competent officer. 2. Before making construction, plans in that regard should be got approved by the competent officer, but the applicants cannot get Raja-chithhi for construction without obtaining N.A. permission. 3. Where Town Planning Scheme has been approved/ sanctioned in the City/Town area, the construction should be made according to GDCR and Zoning Rules. 4. Provisions/arrangement for disposal of dirty water in view of health point shall be made as per the approved plans and the rules of public health shall be observed in the disputed land. 5. 3. Where Town Planning Scheme has been approved/ sanctioned in the City/Town area, the construction should be made according to GDCR and Zoning Rules. 4. Provisions/arrangement for disposal of dirty water in view of health point shall be made as per the approved plans and the rules of public health shall be observed in the disputed land. 5. The applicants shall maintain the distance between the centre point of the road/way keeping in mind the type of road and the construction, as per the Ribbon Development Rules, otherwise the applicants would be liable for it. 6. If permission is sought for industrial purpose, construction can be made only after obtaining necessary permission of District Industrial Officer. 7. If N.A. permission is sought for Floor Mill, Cinema Theater / Touring Cinema, further work/ proceedings can be proceeded only after obtaining necessary permission of District Magistrate. 8. If N.A. permission is sought for Petrol, Diesel, Kerosene, CNG, LPG Pumps, further work/ proceedings can be proceeded only after obtaining necessary permission of District Magistrate. 9. If N.A. permission is sought for fireworks, explosives, manganese, further work/proceedings can be proceeded only after obtaining necessary permission of District Magistrate. 10. If the land in question is nearby Jail, construction should be made after leaving 184 meters distance. 11. If the land in question is nearby the railway limit, construction should be made after leaving space of 30 meters. 12. If electric greed-wires/ high tension wires are passing over or from the side of the land in question or there are electric poles, the construction should be made according to the rules pertaining thereto. 13. If the land for which N.A. permission is sought for is situated within the radius of 20 KMs of Aerodram, necessary `No Objection Certificate’ with regard to height of construction shall be obtained from Civil Aviation Department and shall observe the rules of Civil Aviation Department. 14. The construction shall be made 900 meters away from Indian Air Force Station and installation. 15. If the oil well of ONGC is situated nearby the land in question, the applicants shall observe the relevant Rules. 16. If the land in question is situated nearby Narmada Canal or any other irrigation canal, the applicants shall observe the relevant rules pertaining to proposed construction. 17. 15. If the oil well of ONGC is situated nearby the land in question, the applicants shall observe the relevant Rules. 16. If the land in question is situated nearby Narmada Canal or any other irrigation canal, the applicants shall observe the relevant rules pertaining to proposed construction. 17. If the land in question is situated nearby Protected Monuments declared under the Central Government or State Government Act, construction shall be made after leaving space of 100 meters as per the prevailing rules. 18. The applicants shall observe / comply with the rules relating to maintenance of distance from the Sanctuary, land / forest reserved under the Indian Forests Act, where it is necessary. 19. The applicants shall observe / comply with the rules relating to maintenance of distance from the sanctuary or National Park in view of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, where it is necessary. (15) Special tax/ local fund / education cess etc. shall be paid at the rates prevalent at the relevant point of time. (16) The construction shall be made on non-agricultural land admeasuring 5278.61 sq.mts out of total land of 29441.00 sq.mts of land shown with `A’, `B’, `C’, `D’ in the conditional approved layout plan, as per the sanctioned plan, as per the verification made by Circle Inspector, Taluka Panchayat, Olpad on 12.12.2008 and subject to the conditions indicated in letter No. BP/Asnabad/Olpad/Surat/2349, dated 24.10.2008 and same numbered letter No. 2420, dated 19.11.2008 of the Town Planner, Surat and also according to layout plan / modifications/corrections made with red colour in the building plan. No construction shall be made in the land above 5278.61 sq.mts of land without prior permission of this office. (17) No any type of construction, in any circumstances, shall be made in the earmarked common plot. No any further addition or modifications shall be made in the approved construction or in the plot without N.A. permission, without prior permission of Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Olpad. (18) If the construction would be made contrary to the plan approved/sanctioned by the Town Planner, the same shall be removed within the time limit that may be fixed by the Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Olpad. (18) If the construction would be made contrary to the plan approved/sanctioned by the Town Planner, the same shall be removed within the time limit that may be fixed by the Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Olpad. If the same would not be done, the said construction would be removed at the costs of the applicants and the entire costs incurred for removing the construction, shall be recovered from the applicants as revenue. (19) Before commencing the construction as per the plan sanctioned by the Town Planner, Surat, permission as per section 104 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 would be required to be obtained. But, no Rajachithhi would be issued in absence of N.A. permission by the applicants. (20) The would be ban of use of the said land for the purpose other than C.N.G. Filling Station (pump) in absence of prior written permission of the Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Olpad as per Section 48(4) of the Land Revenue Code. The use of the land for the purpose other than agriculture would be required to be made within 6 months from the date of this order, failing which the applicants would be liable to pay special tax and penalty etc., which may be fixed, from the date on which N.A. permission is granted. (21) Intimation regarding commencement of use of the land for the purpose other than agriculture shall be sent to this Office through Talati-cum-Mantri within one month from the date of commencement of work in the land. (22) The applicants shall get measured the N.A. plots through the District Inspector (Land Records), Surat at their costs within 6 months. The fees for measurement shall be paid within 10 days from the date of this order. In the measurement-sheet issued by the District Inspector of Land Records original commentary with regard to limit shall be mentioned. The plans and layout plans produced shall be sanctioned/approved at the competent level. If there would be any change in the measurement or shape of the land, this order and the Sanad would be liable to change/modification. After measurement by the survey department, four copies of said measurement shall be produced before this Office. The plans and layout plans produced shall be sanctioned/approved at the competent level. If there would be any change in the measurement or shape of the land, this order and the Sanad would be liable to change/modification. After measurement by the survey department, four copies of said measurement shall be produced before this Office. (23) After commencement of N.A. use of the land, but after expiry of appeal period or three months after the date of this order, the occupants shall tender Sanad comprising all the conditions stipulated in Specimen `M’ prepared under the law/rules and the details. The said permission will be subject to all the conditions stipulated in Sanad. (24) The conditions mentioned in Letter No. BP/Asnabad/Olpad/Surat/2349, dated 24.10.2008 and same number Letter No.2420, dated 19.11.2008 of the Town Planner, Surat shall be strictly observed / complied with. The construction shall be made as per the plans sanctioned by the Town Planner, Surat. No any kind of addition, alteration or modification would be made in the sanctioned/approved construction or in the N.A. plots without obtaining prior permission of Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Olpad. (25) The occupants shall maintain distance from the centre point of the road after taking into consideration the type of road under the Ribbon Development Rules. (26) The construction shall be started within 6 months from the date of this order and shall be completed within three years, failing which, the applicants would be liable to pay the amount of special tax, penalty etc. whatever may be decided from the date on which the N.A. permission is granted. (27) The natural drain for disposal of rain water if passing through the land in question would not be discontinued and would be kept continued. In case of discontinuance of the rain water natural drain and if there is collection/accumulation of rain water and any damage would be caused to the surrounding residents or their properties, the applicants would be responsible/liable. (28) If there is collection / accumulation of water due to not taking proper steps in time and any damage is caused to private/public properties, the applicants would be liable to pay the amount of damage and in that event, any type of construction made by the applicants would be removed by the Mamlatdar and this office at the costs of the applicants. (29) In case a compound or periphery wall is constructed around the N.A. plots granted, the height of the wall should not be more than three and half feet and at some equal distance, burrows/holes with grill shall be kept in the compound wall, so that rainy water would not be collected. If wall on both the sides of the road is to be constructed, prior permission of Tuluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Olpad should be obtained. (30) As indicated in the letter of Revenue Department dated 28.02.2003, the applicants shall make necessary arrangement for percolating bore-well/ collection of rain water invariably at every building/ Multistoried Building (as per the permission given by the plan sanctioning authority). (31) As mentioned in the Government Resolution of Revenue Department dated 24.06.2004, the bricks to be used in the construction/erection of the Pump should be manufactured from 100% fly ash. (32) Since through the land totally admeasuring 29441 sq.mts., gas pipeline of ONGC (ONGC has right of use of pipeline) and gas pipeline (with high pressure) of GEL India Limited, Bharuch are passing as well as 1113 sq.mts of land is acquired for drilling by ONGC, Gram Panchayat, Olpad shall give permission for construction after obtaining `No Objection Certificate’ from the concerned authorities. (33) The applicants shall strictly observe / comply with the aforesaid instructions, otherwise they would be liable. (34) The land in question is granted permission only to be used for N.A. purpose. In case any dispute, court cases, litigations or complaints would arise in respect of the land in question, the officer who has granted N.A. permission would be responsible/ liable. (35) Since 11 K.V.H.T. heavy electric line is passing from Block No.40 of land in question and if it is obstructing in the proposed construction, the applicants should get shifted the electric line with the permission of the Executive Engineer (O& M), South Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Surat (Rural) after doing requisite procedure. (36) Punishing provision: (A) In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, punitive actions shall be initiated as per the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and Rules. The possession of the land can be continued with the occupants after recovering penalty or tax assessed as deemed fit by the authority, without prejudice to any other punishment. (36) Punishing provision: (A) In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, punitive actions shall be initiated as per the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and Rules. The possession of the land can be continued with the occupants after recovering penalty or tax assessed as deemed fit by the authority, without prejudice to any other punishment. (B) Irrespective of what is stated in aforesaid sub-clause (A), in case of any addition, alteration or modification in the construction made in breach of the conditions stipulated in the permission order, the same shall be removed by the applicants within the time limited given by the Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Olpad, otherwise the same would be removed at the costs of the occupants recoverable from land revenue. The concerned Circle Inspector and Talati-cum-Mantri should see that the special tax, education cess etc. indicated in the table below is recovered. Government - Revenue Department Circular No. BKS/ 1079/39115/K, dated 23.07.79 and Notification of Revenue Department No. L.R.R./10-2002/1640(1)/K, dated 26.12.2003 and Government – Revenue Department Circular No. SCA/9164/05/1352/05/K, dated 31.05.2006. Block number of land to which N.A. permission is granted. Total area of land to which N.A. permission is granted. Details of use of N.A land and tax-cess to be recovered in respect of N.A. Total amount of tax/cess to be recovered in respect of N.A. use. 1 2 3 4 Block No.40 Survey No.40/1 of Village Asnabad, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Surat-Dhirajlal Maganlal Mali & Ors., residents of At & Post: Olpad, Dist: Surat. 5278.61 sq.mts. out of 29441 sq. mtrs. 0.15 ps. (for commercial purpose-CNG Filling Station) Rs.792.00 Amount of conversion tax to be recovered in respect of N.A. use of land. Amount of education cess to be recovered Amount of any other tax to be recovered Date from which taxes mentioned in Column Nos. 4,6 & 7 are to be recovered. 5 6 7 8 Rs.31672/- is Deposited vide Challan No.497 Dt.20.02.2009 Amount of penalty of Rs.1122/- is deposited vide Receipt No.53 Dated 20.02.2009 As per rules – Revenue Year Date:01.08.2008 2.3 It appears that, thereafter, the appellant herein purchased the land in question admeasuring 5278.61 square meters from the original owners vide registered sale deed dated 8th April, 2009. The revenue entry in this regard also came to be mutated in the record of rights. The revenue entry in this regard also came to be mutated in the record of rights. As the appellant wanted to install the CNG filling pump station, a memorandum of understanding was entered into between the Gujarat Gas Company and the appellant-Company. 2.4 For the purpose of operating the CNG filling pump station, the appellant obtained permission from the following authorities; “(1) Government of India Ministry of Commerce & Industry Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) (2) Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (3) Chief Controller of Explosives (4) District Magistrate, Surat (5) Regional Officer, GPCB” 2.5 After a period of about 21 months from the date of the N.A. Order, the SSRD, in exercise of his suo motu power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, took the N.A. Order in suo motu review. It appears that notice was issued to the original owners of the land in question. The original owners, in turn, informed the appellant herein about the issue of the show-cause notice and, in such circumstances, the appellant appeared before the SSRD and filed its reply dated 11th January, 2011. The show-cause notice reads thus; “GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT No. MVV/BKP-Suo Motu/Rat/6/10 Additional Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) Ground Floor, Hostel Building Polytechnic Compound, Ambavadi Ahmedabad. Date:02.11.2010 SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE To Shri Dhirajlal Maganlal Mali & Ors. (RPAD) Residing at Asnabad, Taluka Olpad District Surat. Sub: To quash the order No.P/Mehsul/ N.A./Reg.No.5/ 1225-40 V./09 dated 25.02.2009 passed by the Taluka Development Officer in Revision granting NA permission under section 65 of the Land Revenue Code for the land admeasuring 5278-61 sq. mtrs., out of land bearing Survey Nos.40/1 Block No.40 admeasuring 29441 sq. mtrs., situated at village Aasnabad, Taluka Olpad. This is to inform you that, as per order N.A/ Reg.No.5/1225-40 V./09 dated 24/25.02.2009 passed by the Taluka Development Officer, Olpad, the NA permission under section 66 of the Land Revenue Code, 1879 has been granted vide Resolution No.5 dated 29.01.2009 passed by the Executive Committee, Taluka Panchayat Olpad for industrial purpose (for CNG filling station) of the land admeasuring 5278-61 sq. mtrs., out of land bearing Survey Nos.40/1 Block No.40 admeasuring 29441 sq. mtrs., situated at village Aasnabad, Taluka Olpad, District Surat. mtrs., out of land bearing Survey Nos.40/1 Block No.40 admeasuring 29441 sq. mtrs., situated at village Aasnabad, Taluka Olpad, District Surat. Considering the related evidence to the aforesaid order, it appears that the said order has been passed without verifying the documentary evidence and opinions and therefore, the said order is to be reviewed under section 211 of the Land Revenue Code, 1879 for the following reasons:. R E A S O N S: The permission under section 65 of the Land Revenue Code, 1879 has been granted to convert the land into non-agriculture for the purpose of CNG filling station in the land admeasuring 5278-61 sq. mtrs., out of land bearing Survey Nos.40/1 Block No.40 admeasuring 29441 sq. mtrs., situated at village Aasnabad, Taluka Olpad, District Surat, you have obtained opinion from the office of the District Magistrate, Surat stating that there is no objection with regard to law and order. However, as per the Government Resolution No.BKP/2006/ 425/A, of the Revenue Department, Gandhinagar dated 01.07.2008, according to the conditions mentioned in Scheduled-4, which are to be followed by the applicant, wherein it is stated that before installing petrol, diesel, kerosene, CNG, LPG pump, necessary NA permission of the District Magistrate will have to be obtained before starting construction and thereafter, the applicant shall conduct further proceedings, whereas the applicant has not obtained ‘No Objection’ certificate from the District Magistrate, Surat and has started process of construction. The Taluka Development Officer, Olpad has informed the Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Company, Bhatpor, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat and the In-Charge Manager, LAQ Section, Oil and Natural Gas Company, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, for giving their ‘No Objection’ Certificates/ positive opinions for transferring the agriculture land into non-agriculture, however, no opinion has been received from them in this regard and construction activity has been started. As per letter No.T.P./Revenue/N.A. Regi. No.5/V/08 dated 11.11.2008, the Taluka Development Officer, Olpad has sought opinion from the Manager, Reliance Industries, Mora, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat for transferring the land in question from agriculture to non-agriculture land, however, no opinion has been received and the said permission has been granted without obtaining such opinion. As per letter No.T.P./Revenue/N.A. Regi. No.5/V/08 dated 11.11.2008, the Taluka Development Officer, Olpad has sought opinion from the Manager, Reliance Industries, Mora, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat for transferring the land in question from agriculture to non-agriculture land, however, no opinion has been received and the said permission has been granted without obtaining such opinion. As per letter dated 11.11.2008, the Taluka Development Officer, Olpad has sought opinion from the office of the Collector, Tenancy Branch, Surat for transferring the land in question from agriculture to non-agriculture land, however, no opinion has been received from the office of Collector and the said permission has been granted without obtaining such opinion. The opinions have been sought from the offices of the Manager, District Industrial Unit, Surat and Manager, Gujarat Pollution Board, Surat and Regional Manager, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Surat for transferring the land in question from agriculture to non-agriculture land, however, no opinion has been received and said permission has been granted without obtaining such opinion. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reasons, why the order dated 25.02.2009 passed by the Taluka Development Officer, Olpad should not be quashed after reviewing the same under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879? Therefore, you are requested to submit in writing in this regard, whatever you want to submit within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this show-cause notice. Further, if you want to remain personally present to represent your case, you are requested to remain present in this office at 12.00 hrs in the afternoon on the date of hearing i.e. 23.11.2010, Tuesday. Please take note that in absence of receipt of your written explanation within the aforesaid time limit or if you will remain absent in the next hearing, then it will be believed that you do not want to represent your case and appropriate decision will be taken on the merits of the case. Please take note that in absence of receipt of your written explanation within the aforesaid time limit or if you will remain absent in the next hearing, then it will be believed that you do not want to represent your case and appropriate decision will be taken on the merits of the case. Therefore, it is directed that the condition as on today will have to be maintained in the land in question and no construction will be made in the said land and the land will not be transferred in any manner nor any encumbrance will be created on the said land till the final order in this case.” 2.6 It appears on plain reading of the show-cause notice that the State Government thought fit to take the NA order in suo motu review on the ground that before the grant of the NA Permission to utilize the land for non-agricultural purpose, the opinions of the District Industrial Unit, Surat, GPCB, Surat, GIDC, Surat and ONGC were not called for and taken into consideration. Surprisingly, the record reveals and, in fact, it has been boldly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the TDO that it is the TDO himself who addressed a letter to the SSRD stating that the order of NA is not in accordance with law. 2.7 Ultimately, the SSRD, by its order dated 23rd February, 2016, cancelled the order passed by the TDO granting NA Permission. The impugned order passed by the SSRD, Annexure A to the petition, reads as under; “GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Speed Post No.MVV/BKP/Suomotu/ST/2010 Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Revenue Appeal and Revision Bhavan, B/h. Sola Police Station, SG Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad:60 Date : 23.02.2016 Applicant : Dhirajlal Maganlal Mali & Ors, Residing at Asanabad, Taluka : Olpad, Dist : Surat: 394540. Revision Application under Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code Impugned Order: Suo-motu Revision Application against Order No. Taluka Panchayat/Revenue/ NA/Reg.No.5/1225-40/V/2009 of Taluka Development Officer, Olpad. The facts of the case, in brief, are that N.A. permission for commercial purpose (CNG Filling Station) in respect of land admeasuring 5278.61 sq.mts out of 29441 sq.mts. of land of Block No.40/1 of village Asnabad, Taluka : Olpad, District : Surat has been granted by Taluka Development Officer on the basis of Resolution No.5 passed by the Executive Committee of Taluka Panchayat Office, Olpad. of land of Block No.40/1 of village Asnabad, Taluka : Olpad, District : Surat has been granted by Taluka Development Officer on the basis of Resolution No.5 passed by the Executive Committee of Taluka Panchayat Office, Olpad. Since the said N.A. order has been passed without examining the complete/ sufficient documentary evidence as well as the opinion of the concerned departments/offices, Taluka Development Officer vide letter No. T.P/Revenue/N.A./V/9063/2010, dated 21.9.2010 has proposed to cancel the N.A. order by taking it in revision under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code On receipt of the aforesaid proposal, show-cause notice was issued to the parties on 2.11.2010 informing them to show cause as to why the disputed order should not be set aside for the reasons stated in the proposal. It has also been ordered that till the final decision is not taken by this Office, status-quo of the land in question should be maintained, neither any type of construction should be made, nor any alienation/transfer should be made, nor any charge/encumbrance should be created on the said land. The hearing of the revision was also fixed on 23.11.2010. Thereafter, it was adjourned on 11.1.2011, 19.4.2011, 57.2011, 27.9.2011, 22.11.2011, 20.12.2011, 17.1.2012, 28.2.2012, 1.5.2012, 24.7.2012, 6.11.2012, 5.2.2013, 11.2.2014 and 14.9.2015 for various reasons. On the last occasion/adjournment, learned advocate for the applicant advanced his oral arguments. Since written arguments were submitted on behalf of the respondent earlier, the hearing was concluded. On behalf of the respondent – Divine Fuel Services Pvt. Ltd., the main submission was that though a notice under section 211 of the Land Revenue Code to cancel the N.A. order has been given, since it is against the provisions of the Land Revenue Code as well as against the principles of justice, it may be withdrawn. Pursuant to the application tendered by the landowners for granting N.A. permission in respect of the disputed land, N.A. permission has been granted by the impugned order by Executive Committee of Taluka Panchayat vide Resolution No.5. The disputed land has been purchased by the applicant-company from the landowner by a registered sale deed. Since the Officer who has passed the N.A. permission order is competent, present notice is barred by res judicata and estoppel. The show-cause notice dated 2.11.2010 is issued after a considerable long time and, therefore, it is improper and requires to be withdrawn. The disputed land has been purchased by the applicant-company from the landowner by a registered sale deed. Since the Officer who has passed the N.A. permission order is competent, present notice is barred by res judicata and estoppel. The show-cause notice dated 2.11.2010 is issued after a considerable long time and, therefore, it is improper and requires to be withdrawn. Entry of N.A. order is also mutated and tax is also recovered. The powers of revision should be exercised within reasonable time and in support of this point, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Patel Valji Ramji v. State of Gujarat, 1997(1) GLH (UJ) 30. In reply to ground/reason No.1, wherein it has been stated that `No Objection Certificate’ from District Magistrate is not received, it is stated that the respondent is the new purchaser of non-agricultural land. The N.A. permission has been granted before the land was purchased by the respondent. Since copy of the N.A. order was not received, the respondent were not aware about the conditions of N.A. permission, even then the respondent will comply with the conditions stipulated in the N.A. Order. In reply to ground No.2, wherein it is stated that though O.N.G.C. sent its opinion, but not received by the respondent, construction is commenced, it is informed that if objection is not submitted to the concerned Office within 21 days, it is deemed that the authority has no objection and permission shall be granted, even then the respondent shall comply with the conditions as early as possible. The grounds stated in Reasons No.3, 4 & 5 are with regard to the opinion of the concerned Office and with regard to the objection to be submitted within 21 days, even though the respondent will comply with the conditions. The equity of this land has been changed as well as lakhs/crore rupees have been spent behind this land. If the N.A. permission is held to be illegal, great loss would be caused to the respondent. Since this land is non-agricultural land, the notice may be withdrawn or filed. However, the respondent is ready and willing to comply with / abide by the conditions that may be stipulated, strictly within the time limit prescribed by Your Honour. If the N.A. permission is held to be illegal, great loss would be caused to the respondent. Since this land is non-agricultural land, the notice may be withdrawn or filed. However, the respondent is ready and willing to comply with / abide by the conditions that may be stipulated, strictly within the time limit prescribed by Your Honour. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that for the aforesaid reasons, the notice may be withdrawn and the entire chapter may be closed. The proposal submitted by the Taluka Development Officer to set aside the impugned order by taking it in revision, the show-cause notice issued by this office, the written arguments submitted by the respondent as well as the papers of this case are examined. Pursuant to the application made by Dhirajlal Maganlal Mali and others for obtaining non-agricultural permission with regard to 3566.89 sq.mts. of land out of 2-94-41 hectares-Are-Sq.mts. of land of Block No.40/1 of village Asnabad, Taluka : Olpad, District : Surat, opinion of the concerned department/office sought for by a letter was received and a proposal along with the said opinion was produced before the Executive Committee of the Taluka Panchyat and on the basis of Resolution No.5 passed by the Executive Committee, the impugned order granting N.A. permission with regard to the disputed land was passed. On perusing the noting papers produced in this chapter, page No.13 reveals that though the opinions of O.N.G.C., Manager of Reliance Industries, Tenancy Branch of Collector Office, Manager of District Industries Centre, Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Regional Manager of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation were not received, the case was put up before the Executive Committee for decision and on approval of the proposal by the Committee, the N.A. permission was granted. On perusing the letter dated 30.6.2009 of Taluka Development Officer, letter of District Development Officer, Surat produced on page 107 of the record, the Taluka Development Officer had not given concurrence and in spite of that, at the end of the discussion, the Executive Committee took a decision to grant N.A. permission. Besides, in the letter of O.N.G.C. No. LAQ/NOV/ASNABAD/2010- 111, dated 6-1-2010 produced on page No.269 it has been stated with regard to the disputed land that ONGC has a Right of User in this land and as per PMP Act, 1962, No construction activity can be permitted in the ROU Area. Besides, in the letter of O.N.G.C. No. LAQ/NOV/ASNABAD/2010- 111, dated 6-1-2010 produced on page No.269 it has been stated with regard to the disputed land that ONGC has a Right of User in this land and as per PMP Act, 1962, No construction activity can be permitted in the ROU Area. It is accordingly, informed that NOC cannot be repeat, cannot be granted for construction of CNG Station in S. No. 40/1 at ASnabad village, district : Surat. Thus, taking into consideration all the aforesaid materials, the proposal of the Taluka Development Officer to take in revision the disputed order and to set aside it, has been accepted and following order is passed :- O R D E R The proposal submitted by Taluka Development Officer, Olpad, dated 21.09.2010 is accepted. The order passed by Taluka Development Officer, Olpad bearing No. Taluka Pabcgatat / Revenue/N.A./Reso. No.5/1225-40/V/2009, dated 25.02.2009 is hereby set aside.” 2.8 Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the SSRD, the appellant herein came up before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.9894 of 2016. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated, 29th July, 2016, rejected the writ application. While rejecting the writ application, the learned Single Judge observed as under; “Heard learned advocate Mr.Digant Popat for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader. 2. This petition is directed against order dated 22nd February, 2016 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad, whereby Revision Application No.06 of 2010 of the State came to be accepted. The Revisional Authority approved the proposal dated 21st September, 2010 of the Taluka Development Officer, Olpad and cancelled the order dated 25th February, 2009 of the said authority. 3. Noticing the facts of the case, the Taluka Development Officer had granted non-agriculture permission in view of Taluka Panchayat Executive Committee Resolution No.5 in respect of land bearing Block No.40/1 admeasuring 29,441 Sq. Meters Paiki 5,278.61 Sq. Meters at Village Aasnaba, Taluka Olpad, Surat. It appears that since it was found that the said permission was granted without examining and paying heed to the opinions of the authorities concerned, by letter dated 21st September, 2010 the Taluka Development Officer made proposal to take the same in Review under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Meters at Village Aasnaba, Taluka Olpad, Surat. It appears that since it was found that the said permission was granted without examining and paying heed to the opinions of the authorities concerned, by letter dated 21st September, 2010 the Taluka Development Officer made proposal to take the same in Review under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 3.1 Thereafter a show cause notice dated 02nd November, 2010 was issued to the parties concerned calling upon them to explain as to why the non-agriculture permission should not be cancelled on the ground stated. It was directed to maintain status quo and not to put up any construction, further not to transfer or alienate the land. Hearing took place on 23rd November, 2010 and after different dates given, the hearing was concluded. Written submissions of the respondent were also accepted and considered, therefore the whole process was carried out after affording opportunity of hearing and in compliance of natural justice. 4. The Revisional Authority has recorded in the impugned order that before granting N.A. permission, as the record revealed, various permissions from (i) Oil & Natural Gas Commission, (ii) Manager, Reliance Industries, (iii) Collector, Tenancy Department, (iv) Manager, District Industries Center, (v) Gujarat Pollution Control Board and (vi) Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation were not obtained. They were indispensable to be obtained. Somehow the proposal was placed in the Executive Committee of Taluka Panchayat without any such clearance. The record further showed, as observed by the Revisional Authority, that the Taluka Development Officer had clearly objected to the conversion into N.A. by his letter dated 30th June, 2009, which too was ignored and the Executive Committee accorded permission. Under the law, the permission of the ONGC for using the land and other governmental authority was required but the same was by-passed. 5. In the aforesaid view, the impugned order based on such consideration cannot be said to be booking any error. The findings are reasonable, conclusions are proper and the order is based on considerations germane in law. No case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. No cost.' 2.9. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, rejecting the writ application, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeal. 3. Mr. No case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. No cost.' 2.9. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, rejecting the writ application, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeal. 3. Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in rejecting the writ application and thereby upholding the order passed by the SSRD, cancelling the NA order. 4. The first submission of Mr. Shah is that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the order, granting the N.A Permission came to be taken up in suo motu review after a period of 21 months. His second submission is that it took four years, thereafter, for the SSRD to pass the impugned order cancelling the NA permission. Thus, according to Mr. Shah, it could be said that after a period of almost six years from the date of the grant of the NA Permission, such permission came to be cancelled in exercise of powers under Section 211 of the Code. Mr. Shah would submit that there are plethora of decisions of this Court, taking the view that a suo motu power under Section 211 of the Code should be exercised within a reasonable period of time. 5. Mr. Shah would submit that his client has been running the CNG filling station past nine years, and all of a sudden, the order, cancelling the NA permission, has been passed. 6. Mr. Shah would submit that the NA permission came to be cancelled on the grounds which are not at all sustainable in law. He would submit that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration an important fact that as per the rules and regulations of the procedure prescribed in law for the purpose of grant of NA permission, the authority concerned had called for the opinions of one and all but, unfortunately, the competent authority did not receive the opinions of few in time. Mr. Shah would submit that the same would not render the N.A. Order, per se, illegal or a nullity. Mr. Shah would submit that the same would not render the N.A. Order, per se, illegal or a nullity. The Executive Committee of the Taluka Panchayat, after due consideration of various other opinions and materials, took the decision to grant the NA permission and, accordingly, the order of NA came to be passed. 7. Mr. Shah submitted that in the case on hand, his client has obtained permission from all the authorities concerned for the purpose of running the CNG filling station. He would submit that his client has been granted license to run the CNG filling station by the Central Government. He also pointed out that the GPCB has also made it very clear that it is not necessary for them to say anything with regard to the installation of a CNG filling station. 8. According to Mr. Shah, all the relevant aspects, referred to above, have not been considered by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ application. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error in saying that the opinions were indispensable. 9. In such circumstances, referred to above, Mr. Shah prays that there being merit in his appeal, the same be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside. He prays that the original writ application may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the SSRD, cancelling the NA permission may be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, this appeal has been vehemently opposed by Ms. Sejal Mandaviya, the learned counsel appearing for the TDO. Ms. Mandaviya has appeared for the very same TDO who has signed the NA order, but according to him, the order is not in accordance with law. According to Ms. Mandaviya, the TDO had brought to the notice of the Executive Committee of the Taluka Panchayat that the NA permission could not have been granted in the absence of the opinion of the ONGC, but the Executive Committee still proceeded to pass the resolution to grant the NA permission. In such circumstances, according to Ms. Mandaviya, her client was left with no other option but to bring such fact to the notice of the State Government so that the State Government can take the NA order in suo motu review. According to Ms. In such circumstances, according to Ms. Mandaviya, her client was left with no other option but to bring such fact to the notice of the State Government so that the State Government can take the NA order in suo motu review. According to Ms. Mandaviya, no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ application. 11. This appeal has also been vehemently opposed by Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, the learned AGP appearing for the State. The learned AGP would submit that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ application. 12. The learned AGP would submit that in the absence of the opinion of the ONGC, the NA permission could not have been granted. Ms. Jhaveri further submitted that although the order could be said to have been passed after a period of six years from the date of the grant of the NA permission, yet the fact remains that on many occasions, it is the appellant who had prayed for time before the SSRD. Thus, according to the learned AGP, mere delay of six years is not sufficient to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the SSRD. 13. In such circumstances, referred to above, Ms. Jhaveri, the learned AGP, prays that there being no merit in this appeal, the same may be dismissed. ANALYSIS 14. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in passing the impugned order. 15. The most important aspect of the matter, which has been lost sight off by the learned Single Judge, is that although no period of limitation is prescribed for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 211 of the Code, yet it has been settled by the Apex Court in its decision in State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors., reported in X G.L.R., 1969 Page 992, that these revisional powers were to be exercised in a reasonable time and the length of reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is to be revised. It was noticed that under Section 65 of the Code, if the Collector does not 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. Therefore, revisional powers must be exercised within a few months of the order of the Collector. In the instant case, permission for putting the land to N.A use was granted in favour of the original owner under Section 65 of the Code by the concerned authority on 25th February, 2009, whereas the suo motu cognizance was taken after almost one year & nine months. 16. We are not, at all, impressed with the submission canvassed on behalf of the TDO as well as the State Government that although it took six years to pass the order, cancelling the grant of N.A. Permission, yet, the cognizance was taken within twenty one months from the date of the passing of the N.A. Order. Merely because the Revisional Authority calls for the record from the subordinate authority with a view to examine whether it should exercise its revisional power, it cannot be said that the action taken much after the record is called for, should be treated as expeditiously taken. The show-cause notice itself came to be issued nearly one year and nine months after the N.A. Order. In this context, calling for the record at an earlier date for the purpose of examining whether the revisional power should be exercised or not would not be a relevant factor and the question of delay cannot be decided on the basis of the date on which the record is called for by the Revisional Authority under Section 211 of the Code. The material date for considering the question of delay in exercise of the revisional power under Section 211 of the Code would be the date on which the revision power is exercised and not the date on which the revisional authority calls for the record from the subordinate authority. The facts and circumstances of the case, clearly show that the revisional power has not been exercised within a reasonable time. 17. The facts and circumstances of the case, clearly show that the revisional power has not been exercised within a reasonable time. 17. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Raghav Natha (supra), a Bench decision of this Court has, also said, that, though no period of limitation is prescribed under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, this power of revision must be exercised in a reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised. This is the say of the Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwanji Bawanji Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (1971) XII GLR 156. Though the Supreme Court in the case of Raghav Natha (supra) has said that this exercise must be within a period of few months, this Bench decision says that the maximum period cannot be more than a year from the date of the orders, which are to be revised under Section 211. 18. A similar view has been taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Bipinchandra G. Dalai and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. 1987(2) GLR 971 . In that decision also this Court was concerned with the exercise of the revisional powers under Section 211 of the Code while reviewing the orders made under Section 65 of the Code. This decision makes it clear that the revisional jurisdiction must be exercised within a reasonable time especially with respect to the orders under Section 65 of the Code. 19. Thus, on a compactus of decisions which have been discussed above, the unequivocal principle laid down by the Supreme Court appears to have been followed by saying that, if the order granting the permission for non-agricultural use under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code are to be revised under Section 211 of the Code, it must be done within a reasonable time and that looking to the special provisions embodied in Section 65 of the Code a few months can be said to be a reasonable time during which the powers shall have to be exercised. 20. 20. It is settled that, there is a fine distinction between the orders which can be said to be illegal or invalid orders on one hand and the orders which can be said to be ab-initio void or orders in nullity. A mere error of law or a mere non-performance of a duty by an officer acting under a particular Statute would not render his orders void ab-initio. The revisional authority, namely, Special Secretary (Appeals, Revenue Department, Ahmedabad, was aware of a hurdle or a predicament in his way being created by the Supreme Court decision, in case of Raghav Natha (supra). The authority knew well that the hurdle can be crossed only if the orders granting the N.A. permission could be characterised or branded as the orders void ab-initio. The learned Single Judge took the view that the opinion of the ONGC was indispensable and in the absence of the same, the N.A. order could be termed as a nullity. 21. The Supreme Court had an occasion to make more clear the distinction between the orders which can be regarded as legal orders on one hand and the orders void ab-initio on the other. The Supreme Court pronouncement in the case of Ittyavira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey and Anr, AIR 1964 SC 907 , says thus; “But it is well settled that a Court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit and over the parties thereto, though bound to decide right may decide wrong; and that eventhough it decided wrong, it would not be doing something which it had no jurisdiction to do. It had the jurisdiction over the subject-matter and it had the jurisdiction over the party, and, therefore, merely because it made an error in deciding a vital issue in the suit, it cannot be said that it has acted beyond its jurisdiction. As has often been said, Courts have jurisdiction to decide right or to decide wrong and eventhough they decide wrong, the decrees rendered by them cannot be treated as nullities.” 22. This decision, rendered by the Supreme Court way back in year 1964, makes it abundantly clear that if the authority had jurisdiction over the subject-matter and over the parties also, merely because the authority had made an error in deciding a vital issue in the matter it cannot be said that the orders would result into nullity. This decision, rendered by the Supreme Court way back in year 1964, makes it abundantly clear that if the authority had jurisdiction over the subject-matter and over the parties also, merely because the authority had made an error in deciding a vital issue in the matter it cannot be said that the orders would result into nullity. The Supreme Court probably was on a recognised principle that when the authority has the jurisdiction to decide a thing the same should stand decided in a right manner. But occasions do arise when the matter may get decided in a wrong manner too. But this would not render the order pronounced by the authority void ab-initio. Therefore, even if it is to be accepted that the orders sought to be revised by the revisional authority, were in contravention of certain provision of law or certain directions issued by the Government they cannot be termed as orders void ab-initio. This again is for the academic purpose, because in our view no irregularity whatsoever appears to have been committed by the authority granting the permission for non-agricultural use, under the orders which came to be revised after a pretty long time, after bearing a bad name of orders void ab-initio. 23. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bipinchandra G. Dalal (supra). A.M. Ahmadi, J., as his Lordship then was, observed thus; “7. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Raghav Natha 1969 GLR 992 was concerned with a case where revisional powers were sought to be exercised under Section 211 of the Code in respect of permission granted under section 65 of the code. In that case one of the questions which came up for consideration was, whether it was open to the concerned authority to exercise revisional jurisdiction at any point of time or whether the same ought to be exercised within a reasonable time. Dealing with this question the Supreme Court observed that while no period of limitation was prescribed under Section 211 of the Code, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time, the length of reasonable time to be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order proposed to be revised. Dealing with this question the Supreme Court observed that while no period of limitation was prescribed under Section 211 of the Code, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time, the length of reasonable time to be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order proposed to be revised. The Supreme Court further stated that in cases where revisional power is sought to be exercised with reference to the order made under section 65 of the code, the length of reasonable time must be determined having regard to the time factor provided in section 65 of the code for the grant of permission. Taking note of the fact that under section 65 of the code if the Collector does not inform the applicant of his decision within a period of three months the permission by fiction of law must be taken to have been granted, the Supreme Court observed that the revisional power must be exercised within a few months of the order passed under section 65 of the code having regard to the urgency accorded to such orders by the legislature. The Supreme Court answered the question in paragraph 13 of the judgment as under: Reading Sections 211 and 65 together it seems to us that Commissioner must exercise his revisional powers within a few months of the order of the Collector. This is reasonable time because after the grant of the permission for building purposes the occupant is likely to spend money on starting building operations at least within a few months from the date of the permission. It is clear from the above observation that in cases where revisional power is proposed to be exercised under Section 211 of the Code in regard to permission granted under section 65 of the code, the same must be done within a few months keeping in mind the urgency exhibited by the legislature by providing that if the authority does not make up its mind within three months and does not indicate the decision, the permission shall be deemed to have been granted. In the present cases the permission was granted by the TDO on 6th November 1982 and thereafter, after a lapse of almost 1 1/2 years, the Secretary (Appeals) issued show-cause notices dated 8th/11th May 1984 for exercise of power under Section 211 of the Code. In the present cases the permission was granted by the TDO on 6th November 1982 and thereafter, after a lapse of almost 1 1/2 years, the Secretary (Appeals) issued show-cause notices dated 8th/11th May 1984 for exercise of power under Section 211 of the Code. The question then is, whether the power can be said to have been exercised within a reasonable time? 8. Mr. Bukhari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, invited my attention to the decisions of this Court in Habib Nasir Khanji v. State 1970 GLR 307 and Bhagwanji Bawanji v. State of Gujarat 1971 GLR 156 and contended that the length of reasonable time must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and in the aforesaid decisions the exercise of revisional power after a lapse of a year or so was considered to be in order. He submitted that the basic idea is to see that the sword is not kept hanging on the party granted permission for an unreasonably long period as that would make it difficult for the party to make non-agricultural use of the land. It must be realised that both these decisions on which Mr. Bukhari places reliance are not concerning the grant of permission under section 65 of the code. The power under Section 211 of the Code can be exercised by the State Government and certain high ranking officers in respect of any inquiry or proceedings of any subordinate revenue officer. Such inquiry or proceedings may or may not relate to the question of grant of permission under section 65 of the code. While it is true that the length of reasonable time would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, it must be realised that insofar as permission under Section 65 is concerned, that provision itself indicates the length of reasonable time within which action must be taken under Section 211 of the Code. Where the order sought to be revised is other than the one made under section 65 of the code, the length of reasonable time may be governed by the facts and circumstances of that case but when an order passed under section 65 of the code is sought to be revised, the time factor set out in that provision itself gives a clear indication of what could be the reasonable time within which the jurisdiction should be exercised. Therefore, exercise of power under Section 211 of the Code in regard to orders made under section 65 of the code stand on a different footing and as observed by the Supreme Court, the revisional jurisdiction must be exercised within a few months. In the present case the order of the Secretary (Appeals) does not indicate why the decision to exercise revisional powers was delayed by Wi years. Unlike in the batch of petitions, Special Civil Application No. 4530 of 1983 and allied matters disposed of today, no preliminary inquiry was made, at least that is nobody's case, before decision to exercise revisional powers was taken. There is no explanation whatsoever why revisional jurisdiction was not exercised soon after the orders granting permission under section 65 of the code were made on 6th November 1982. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it is difficult to say that the revisional power was exercised promptly and expeditiously, i.e. within a reasonable time. 9. The Secretary (Appeals) has relied on two decisions of this Court, both rendered by S.H. Sheth, J. In the case of Kamalkhan Ajitkhan (supra), the Mamlatdar granted land to the petitioner on 3rd January 1973 and the Assistant Collector issued notice under Section 211 of the Code on 21st January, 1975, that is, after a lapse of two years. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court that the power must be exercised within a reasonable time, it was observed that reasonable time must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner had not done anything on the Wada land and the land had remained as it was during the said period of two years, this Court held that it was permissible to exercise revisional power as the same was not likely to cause any prejudice to the petitioner. In the case of Gulam Yasinmiya (supra), the order made by the Assistant Collector on 7th August 1967 was sought to be revised after a lapse of almost three years by notice dated 27th October 1970. In the case of Gulam Yasinmiya (supra), the order made by the Assistant Collector on 7th August 1967 was sought to be revised after a lapse of almost three years by notice dated 27th October 1970. Taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court as well as this Court in Habib Nasir's case (supra), the learned Judge observed that since the period of reasonable time must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, it would have been necessary to seriously view the proposed action if the evidence had disclosed that after the land was granted to the petitioner, the petitioner had invested moneys in the land, developed it or had done something to develop it. In the absence of such evidence, this Court held that notwithstanding the lapse of time, since the proposed action was not likely to cause prejudice to the petitioner, the same must be upheld. Both these decisions do not pertain to exercise of revisional powers relating to permission granted under section 65 of the code. As pointed out earlier, cases governed by Section 65 read with Section 211 stand on a different footing and in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court extracted earlier, the power must be exercised within a few months from the date of permission. Besides, in the present case the petitioners have averred that after the grant of permission, they have sold or entered into an agreement to sell the plot for the purpose of development and if the permission granted is belatedly cancelled, it would have a direct impact on the transaction entered into by the petitioners. Miss Shah was, therefore, right in contending that so far as the present two petitions are concerned since the first respondent has not given any satisfactory explanation for the delay, this Court must hold that the power was not exercised within reasonable time. She submitted that in the present case it is not the contention of the first respondent that any preliminary inquiry was made to determine whether these were fit cases for exercise of revisional powers as in the batch of petitions. Special Civil Application No. 4530 of 1983 and allied matters disposed of today and, therefore, there is no explanation whatsoever why the power was not exercised promptly within a few months from 6th November 1982. Special Civil Application No. 4530 of 1983 and allied matters disposed of today and, therefore, there is no explanation whatsoever why the power was not exercised promptly within a few months from 6th November 1982. This is all the more so because in similar circumstances the Secretary (Appeals) had while dealing with land in Block No. 18 admeasuring 2723 sq. yards, withdrawn the show-cause notice on the ground that the proposed action was delayed. I am inclined to agree with the submissions made by Miss Shah in this behalf." 24. We also take notice of the fact that the appellant has been issued the Central Excise Registration Certificate under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, Annexure-F to the petition. We also take notice of the license issued by the Chief Controller of Explosives to dispense compressed natural gas in a CNG filling station. The license was granted upto 30th September, 2019. We also take notice of the no objection certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Surat dated 19th September, 2009. The No Objection Certificate reads thus; “No. Petroleum/SR.2/2009 Office of the District Magistrate, Surat, Nanpura, Surat Date :19.09.2009 Nanpura, Surat Date '.19.09.2009 READ : (1) Application of Divine Fuel Services Pvt. Ltd., Plot No6, Survey No. 60, Unity Ind. Estate, Surat Navsari Road, Bhestan, Surat dtd. 20.01.09. (2) Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, Olpad’s Letter No. JMN/Ws. 1004/09, Dt. 23.03.09. (3) Sub Divisional Magistrate, Olpad Parant’s Letter No.MAG/NOC/Ws. 1833/09, dt. 08.05.2009 (4) District Superintendent of Police, Surat (Rural), Surat’s letter No. VHT/CD.4/WS.396/383/09/6720, dt. 20.05.09. (5) Executive Engineer, Road & Building Division-2, Surat Letter No. CB/PETROLEUM STORAGE/1449/O9, dt. 29.05.09. No Objection Certificate is hereby granted to Divine Fuel Services Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 6, Survey No. 60, Unity Ind. Estate, Surat for storage of 2000 P.S.W.C. (40 Cylinders x 50 Ltrs.) Compressed Natural Gas-CNG in land bearing Block No. 40, Village- Asnabad, Tal. Olpad, District Surat under Rule 48 of the Gas Cylinders Rules-2004 made there under as per approval plan. This No Objection Certificate is granted under the Following Conditions: (1) The Applicant should take all necessary preventive steps and provide all fire fighting equipments to take care in any fire accident. (2) The applicant should arrange 1.80 meters high wire fencing around the CNG Products Storage Area. This No Objection Certificate is granted under the Following Conditions: (1) The Applicant should take all necessary preventive steps and provide all fire fighting equipments to take care in any fire accident. (2) The applicant should arrange 1.80 meters high wire fencing around the CNG Products Storage Area. (3) Non Agriculture Permission for the purpose of Storage of Petroleum Products should be obtained from the Competent Authority within prescribed time limit by law. In case the land is already Non-Agriculture for any other purpose the permission for storage of Petroleum Products should be obtained (in NA. land from the Competent Authority within prescribed time limit by law. (4) Lease Deed should be made by the applicant within seven days from the date of NA. Permission granted for storage of Petroleum Products by the Concerned Authority. (5) Applicant should compete all other formalities under the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Bombay Tenancy Act or any other prevailing rule. (6) Necessary permission if required under any other law relating to the said installation should be obtained from the Concerned Authority. (7) The applicant shall have to obtain permission for the approach road and the illegible from the Competent Authority. (8) In the event of breach of any of the above conditions and N.O.C shall stand cancelled automatically.” 25. We also take notice of a letter of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board dated 21st February, 2012, stating that it is not necessary at the time of considering the application for NA permission to obtain any permission or opinion of the GPCB. Our attention has been drawn to a Government Resolution dated 1st July, 2008 issued by the Revenue Department, more particularly, clause (4) therein which reads thus; “4. Procedure to be followed by the District Development Officer / Taluka Development Officer:- (A) The District Development Officer/Taluka Development Officer, after the complete scrutiny of the case for N.A. permission, shall obtain the opinion of the Collector Office, and then forward the case along with his opinion to the competent authority of the District/Taluka Panchayat within time. Procedure to be followed by the District Development Officer / Taluka Development Officer:- (A) The District Development Officer/Taluka Development Officer, after the complete scrutiny of the case for N.A. permission, shall obtain the opinion of the Collector Office, and then forward the case along with his opinion to the competent authority of the District/Taluka Panchayat within time. (B) As per the provisions of Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code, decision on any application is to be taken within the prescribed time limit of three months, and in case the competent authority of District/Taluka Panchayat, for any reason, does not take decision on such application within the prescribed time limit of three months, then in that case, District Development Officer/Taluka Development Officer shall inform the applicant about the N.A. permission obtained automatically as per the provisions of Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code.” 26. The aforesaid Clause (b) makes it clear that in the event the Collector fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application, seeking N.A. Permission within a period of three months, the permission, applied for, shall be deemed to have been granted. In a given case, it may happen that although the opinion is called for, but the same may not be received in time and, in such circumstances, the statutory time period of three months may come to an end. In such circumstances, the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 65 of the Code for the purpose of deciding the application, seeking N.A. Permission, may not be saved. It has been ruled by this Court in the case of Kalidas Umedram vs. State of Gujarat, 1996 (2) GCD 124 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. 27. We also take into consideration the contents of the NA order dated 24th February, 2009, more particularly, the column “Read”. The same would indicate that the opinions of the concerned authorities including the ONGC were called for. All necessary precautions have been taken, so far, by the appellant in running the CNG filling station. This is not a case, in which, the appellant is running a CNG filling station without any license or without any valid permission. In fact, no fault could be found with the appellant herein. All necessary precautions have been taken, so far, by the appellant in running the CNG filling station. This is not a case, in which, the appellant is running a CNG filling station without any license or without any valid permission. In fact, no fault could be found with the appellant herein. The original owners obtained the NA permission and after the grant of NA permission, the land came to be purchased by the appellant herein. The appellant is in business past almost nine years and it was too much to tell him, one fine day, that he has to wind up his business because the NA permission granted to the original owners has been cancelled. Till this point of time, the ONGC has also not uttered a word. 28. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the writ application ought not to have been rejected by the learned Single Judge. 29. This litigation is nothing but unnecessary harassment caused to a citizen of this country for no fault on his part. What is the TDO trying to convey?. Is he trying to convey that he was very reluctant to sign the order, granting the N.A. Permission but had to succumb to the pressure of the Executive Committee of the Taluka Panchayat. This does not seem to be the case of the TDO. What prompted him to address a letter to the State Government to take the N.A. Order in suo motu revision under Section 211 of the Code?. This litigation could have been easily avoided. We could have said many things in this regard, but we have refrained ourselves from observing anything further in the matter. 30. In such circumstances, referred to above, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The Special Civil Application No.9894 of 2016 is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the SSRD, cancelling the NA permission, is quashed and set aside. 31. In view of the above, the civil application for stay does not survive and is, accordingly, disposed of.