JUDGMENT : 1. Looking to the issue involved in the present petition, learned advocates appearing for the parties have requested that this matter may be taken up for final hearing and same may be disposed of at an admission stage. 2. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antani waives service of notice of rule for respondent nos.1 to 3. 3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antai for the respondent nso.1 to 3. 4. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs, “(A) Quash and set aside the order dated 5.8.2017 passed by respondent No.1 herein, Annexure­A to this petition, and (B) Quash and set aside the order dated 16.6.2015 passed by respondent No.2 herein, Annexure­B to this petition, and (C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders dated 5.8.2017 and 16.6.2015, Annexure­A and Annexure­B respectively to this petition, and (D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain staus quo, and (E) xxx xxx xxx (F) xxx xxx xxx.” 5. The facts of the present case in nutshell are as under, 5.1 The dispute is with regard to the Entry No.11030 mutated in the revenue record in pursuance to the registered sale deed, by which, the petitioner purchased the land bearing Survey No.61/5 situated at moje Rajula, Taluka : Rajula, District : Amreli. 5.2 The mother of the petitioner viz., Bibiben Jamalbhai had purchased the parcel of land bearing Survey No.20 pk. at the aforesaid village in the year 1978 and, therefore, Entry No.143 came to be mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner came to be mutated in the revenue record by way of Varsaid Entry/Succession Entry No.459 on 30.09.2009. 5.3 Thus, the petitioner being an agriculturist, he purchased the land bearing Survey No.61/5 admeasuring 00­52­61 Hector – Acre – Sq.Mtrs. situated at the aforesaid village by registered sale deed dated 29.07.2010 and, therefore, entry in question came to be posted in the revenue record, which was certified on 02.11.2010. 5.3 Thus, the petitioner being an agriculturist, he purchased the land bearing Survey No.61/5 admeasuring 00­52­61 Hector – Acre – Sq.Mtrs. situated at the aforesaid village by registered sale deed dated 29.07.2010 and, therefore, entry in question came to be posted in the revenue record, which was certified on 02.11.2010. 5.4 The grievance of the petitioner is that after a period of four years, show cause notice was issued in January, 2015 to the petitioner by the respondent – Collector while exercising suo motu powers, wherein it is alleged that though the petitioner is not an agriculturist, he has purchased the agricultural land and thereby he has violated the provision of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement & Agriculture Lands Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “Ordinance” for short) and therefore, why the entry in question should not be cancelled. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted reply and, thereafter, impugned order dated 16.06.2015 was passed by the respondent – Collector, by which, Entry No.11030 has been cancelled. 5.5 The petitioner, therefore, filed Revision Application before the respondent – SSRD challenging the said order. The respondent – SSRD, vide impugned order dated 05.08.2017, rejected the said Revision Application. Therefore, the present petition is filed. 6. Learned advocate, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is an agriculturist and his name is reflected in the revenue record with regard to the said parcel of the land and the entry is mutated in the revenue record, which is till date not cancelled by any authority and even mother of the petitioner was an agriculturist and her name is entered into the revenue record and the said entry is also not cancelled till date. He submitted that thus as the petitioner has purchased the land in question as an agriculturist, it was not open for the respondent – Collector to exercise suo motu powers and thereby cancelled the entry in question. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order passed by the respondent authority be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned advocate would thereafter submit that the suo motu powers were exercised by the respondent authority after a period of four years, which is not permissible. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order passed by the respondent authority be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned advocate would thereafter submit that the suo motu powers were exercised by the respondent authority after a period of four years, which is not permissible. At this stage, it is also submitted that in the meantime, the land in question is converted into non­agriculture land when the respondent – Collector has granted such permission vide order dated 01/02.03.2012, copy of said order is placed on record at Page No.25 of the compilation. Learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in case of Ravichand Manekchand Sheth & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2006 (2) GLR 1567 . After relying upon the said decision, it is submitted that once the land is converted into non­agriculture land, it is not open for the respondent authority to initiate proceeding for violation of Ordinance. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order passed by the respondent authority be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned AGP has opposed this petition and referred to the reasoning recorded by the respondent authorities while passing impugned orders. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have not committed any error while passing the impugned orders as the petitioner is not an agriculturist and he has failed to produce relevant material before the respondent authorities that he is an agriculturist and, therefore, the respondent – Collector has rightly cancelled the Entry No.11030. It is, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties. I have also gone through the material placed on record. 10. From the material placed on record, it has emerged that the name of the petitioner is reflected in the revenue record with regard to the land bearing Survey No.20 pk.2/pk.1. Entry No.459 is mutated in the revenue record with regard to the aforesaid land, copy of said entry is placed on record at Page No.23 of the compilation. It is also reflected from the record that the mother of the petitioner was also an agriculturist and the entry mutated in the revenue record with regard to the aforesaid parcel of land has not been cancelled by the respondent authority. 11. It is also reflected from the record that the mother of the petitioner was also an agriculturist and the entry mutated in the revenue record with regard to the aforesaid parcel of land has not been cancelled by the respondent authority. 11. In this background, if the facts of the present case are examined, it is further revealed that as an agriculturist, the petitioner purchased the agriculture land bearing Survey No.61/5 situated at moje Rajula, Taluka : Rajula, District : Amreli by registered sale deed and, therefore, the concerned revenue authority has mutated Entry No.11030, copy of which is placed on record at Page No.24 of the compilation. The said entry was certified on 02.11.2010 and after a period of almost four years, show cause notice came to be issued by the respondent – Collector alleging that though the petitioner is not an agriculturist, he has purchased the agricultural land and, therefore, asked the petitioner as to why the said entry should not be cancelled. Thereafter, the respondent – Collector passed impugned order. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the meantime, in March, 2012, the respondent – Collector has granted permission to convert the land in question from agricultural to non­ agriculture use and the said order is till date not set aside by any authority nor the said order is revoked by the Collector. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision rendered by this Court in case of Ravichand Manekchand Sheth (supra), is required to be kept in mind. This court has considered similar issue and, thereafter held in Para No.9(vii) as under, 9. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision rendered by this Court in case of Ravichand Manekchand Sheth (supra), is required to be kept in mind. This court has considered similar issue and, thereafter held in Para No.9(vii) as under, 9. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of law, the impugned orders and several judgments, which are referred hereinbelow, in my view, the order dated 10th July,1993 passed by the Assistant Collector, Morbi in Revision Case No.23 of 1992 (Annexure “H” to the memo of the petition) as well as the order dated 29th April,1994 passed by the Collector, Rajkot delivered in Land Appeal No.19 of 1993 (Annexure “I” to the memo of the petition) and the order dated 15th October/November,1994 passed by the State Government (Annexure “J” to the memo of the petition) deserves to be quashed and set aside, mainly for the following facts and reasons :­ (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) xxx xxx xxx (iv) xxx xxx xxx (vi) xxx xxx xxx (vii) There is also an error committed by the authorities below while passing the impugned order. After granting the N.A. Permission under section 65 of the Code,1879, the petitioner no.1 has altered his position, expenditure has been incurred in the land bearing revenue Survey No.1005 paiki and the land has been divided into 20 sub­plots, after sale of all these 20 sub­plots to several persons by registered sale deeds. Once the petitioner no.1 has altered his position and has sold away the sub­plots especially when N.A.Permission is granted (which is valid till today), it was not warranted for the respondent authority to issue Notice dated 12th November,1992 under the Ordinance,1949, read with, Rule 108(6) of the Rules,1972. The execution of the registered sale deeds, upon receipt of the consideration makes the position of the petitioner no.1 so much altered, that now, it cannot be put back, if, at all, the impugned orders held valid and legal. Neither the mutation entry no.1800, which was certified on 23rd March, 1991, neither the N.A Use permission dated 22nd October,1992 has been upset by the respondent authority. The division of the plot in 20 sub­plots, thereafter sale by registered sale deed to 20 persons etc. is due to investment in the land for its development. Neither the mutation entry no.1800, which was certified on 23rd March, 1991, neither the N.A Use permission dated 22nd October,1992 has been upset by the respondent authority. The division of the plot in 20 sub­plots, thereafter sale by registered sale deed to 20 persons etc. is due to investment in the land for its development. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by any of the authorities below as stated hereinabove. N.A. Use Permission is such Non-transparent wall that once the N.A. Use Permission is given, the agricultural land cannot be seen by the respondent authority, except, through window of breach of any conditions of N.A. Use Permission. Once valid N.A. Use Permission granted for any land under section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, it ceases to be agricultural land and, therefore, provisions of any Act, which are applicable to agricultural land are not applicable to such land, whether it is the Ordinance, 1949 or the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 or the like. It has been held by this Court in the case of Bipinchandra G. Dalal & Another V/s. State of Gujarat and Another reported in 1987(2) GLH 127 especially in para­9 thereof, as under :­ “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 petitioners. In the case of Gulam Yasinmiva (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 Yasinmiva (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 necessarily 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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) In the facts of the case decided in the aforesaid judgment, after grant of N.A. Use Permission, the land was sold away and thereafter, a notice was issued under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. This was not approved by this Court and the petition was allowed. In the present case, after grant of N.A. Use Permission, the land was sub­divided into 20 plots by investing amount upon land for its development thereafter, the land was sold away by registered sale deeds and possession has also been parted with, and after lapse of three years, notice under section 108(6) has been issued. There is no explanation for causing delay in issuance of the notice. Therefore such belated action initiated by respondent is bad in law. 13. In the present case also, after the conversion of the land from the agricultural to non­agriculture use, suo motu powers are exercised by the Collector for the alleged violation of the provision of Section 54 of the Ordinance, which is not permissible. Similarly, suo motu powers are to be exercised within a period of three years and, therefore, it can be said that the suo motu powers were exercised after unreasonable period, which is not permissible in view of aforesaid decision. Thus, this Court is also of the view that the present case is squarely covered by the said decision in case of Ravichand Manekchand Sheth (supra). 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 05.08.2017 passed by respondent No.1 herein produced at Annexure­A and the order dated 16.06.2015 passed by respondent No.2 herein produced at Annexure­B are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extend. Direct service is permitted.