JUDGMENT : Vipul M. Pancholi, J. 1. Looking to the issue involved in the present matter, by an order dated 03.12.2019, this Court issued notice for final disposal. Therefore considering the said fact of the present case and with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing at an admission stage. 2. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani, waives service of notice of rule for respondents. 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Tanvish Bhatt for M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the petitioners and learned Advocate General, Mr. Kamal Trivedi assisted by learned Government Pleader, Ms. Manisha Shah for respondents. 4. 2. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani, waives service of notice of rule for respondents. 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Tanvish Bhatt for M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the petitioners and learned Advocate General, Mr. Kamal Trivedi assisted by learned Government Pleader, Ms. Manisha Shah for respondents. 4. In this petition, which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs, “A. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the Impugned Order (Annexure “A”) passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 11th October, 2019 in Revision Application No. TEN / BA / 173 / 2019, whereby the Hon’ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has directed that a status quo be maintained with respect to land bearing Final Plot No.158/2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 50 admeasuring 2326 square meters (old Survey No. 64/2) situated at Mouje Bodakdev, Taluka Ahmedabad city, the same being completely bad in law; B. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Certiorari and or any other writ, order or direction to quash and set aside Mutation Entry No. 12370 (Annexure “B”) dated 16th October, 2019, which records the Impugned Order (Annexure “A”) passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 11th October, 2019 in Revision Application No. TEN / BA / 173 / 2019, whereby the Hon’ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has directed that a status quo be maintained with respect to land bearing Final Plot No.158/2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 50 admeasuring 2326 square meters (old Survey No. 64/2) situated at Mouje Bodakdev, Taluka : Ahmedabad city, the same being completely bad in law; C. Pending notice, admission and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the effect, implementation and execution of the Impugned Order (Annexure “ A”) passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 11th October, 2019 in Revision Application No. TEN / BA / 173 / 2019 with respect to the subject land; D. Pending notice, admission and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the proceedings initiated by the Collector before the Hon’ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal being Revision Application No. TEN / BA / 173 / 2019 (4) with respect to the subject land; E. Ex parte ad interim relief in terms of Paragraph (C) and (D) may kindly be granted; F. Such other and further relief’s as deemed fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience may kindly be granted.” 5. The facts of the case giving rise to filing of the present petition are as under, 5.1 The petitioners are the owners of the land bearing Final Plot No.158/2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 50 admeasuring 2326 square meters (old Survey No.64/2) situated at Mouje Bodakdev, Taluka Ahmedabad City (hereinafter referred to as “subject land” for short). Survey No.64 was originally under the ownership of certain agriculturist, who were desirous of selling the said land to Hanuman Darshan Kheti Sahakari Mandali (hereinafter referred to as “Kheti Mandali” for short), which was registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Societies Act” for short) and comprising of farmers as Members. Therefore, the competent authority granted permission under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “Tenancy Act” for short) to sell the land bearing Survey No.64. Thereafter, the said land was sold to Kheti Mandali through registered sale deed in the month of March, 1991. Thereafter in the year 1995, the Assistant District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, by an order dated 04.02.1995, permitted Kheti Mandali to be bifurcated into two parts viz., Hanuman Darshan Samudayak Kheti Sahakari Mandali, VibhagI (hereinafter referred to as “Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-1) and Hanuman Darshan Samudayak Kheti Sahakari Mandali, Vibhag-2 (hereinafter referred to as “Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-2). Thus because of the said bifurcation, the parcels of land owned by Kheti Mandali were also divided into Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-1 and Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-2, whereby land bearing Survey Nos.64, 68/2 and 70/2 were gone to Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-1, whereas land bearing Survey Nos.66 and 206/1 were gone to Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-2. 5.2 However, the Mamlatdar & ALT initiated proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act against the Kheti Mandali alleging that the purchase of various parcels of land including Survey No.64 by Kheti Mandali from the agriculturist was in violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. However, the Mamlatdar & ALT, by an order dated 13.06.1997, held that initially permission for transfer of the lands has been obtained and, therefore, there is no question of breach of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and in pursuance to the said order, Entry No.5978 came to be mutated in the revenue record. However, the Mamlatdar & ALT, by an order dated 13.06.1997, held that initially permission for transfer of the lands has been obtained and, therefore, there is no question of breach of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and in pursuance to the said order, Entry No.5978 came to be mutated in the revenue record. On the very same day, entry with regard to bifurcation of the Kheti Mandali into Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-1 and Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-2 was mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No.5967 and, thereafter, the said entries came to be certified on 11.09.1997. However since the lands held by Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-1 and Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-2 were falling under the residential area, the Assistant District Registrar, Cooperative Societies passed an order on 12.11.1998 converting Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-1 into Hanuman Darshan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Vibhag-1 (hereinafter referred to as “Housing Society, Vibhag-1” for short) and Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-2 into Hanuman Darshan Cooperative Housing Society, Vibhag-2 (hereinafter referred to as “Housing Society, Vibhag-2” for short). At this stage, it is clarified that land bearing Survey No.64 continued with Housing Society, Vibhag-1. Thereafter for administrative convenience, Housing Society, Vibhag-1 was further bifurcated into three Cooperative Societies viz., (1) Hanuman Darshan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Vibhag-3 (hereinafter referred to as ”Housing Society, Vibhag-3” for short); (2) Hanuman Darshan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Vibhag-4 (hereinafter referred to as ”Housing Society, Vibhag-4” for short) and (3) Hanuman Darshan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Vibhag-5 (hereinafter referred to as ”Housing Society, Vibhag-5” for short). Similarly, Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-2 was also further bifurcated into two Cooperative Societies viz., (1) Hanuman Darshan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Vibhag-6 (hereinafter referred to as ”Housing Society, Vibhag-6” for short) and (2) Hanuman Darshan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Vibhag-7 (hereinafter referred to as ”Housing Society, Vibhag-7” for short). In pursuance to the bifurcation of aforesaid Societies, necessary mutation entries were posted in the revenue record, copies of which are placed on record. Thus because of such bifurcation, Survey No.64 came in Housing Society, Vibhag-5 and, thereafter in the year 200102, said survey number was covered under the draft Town Planning Scheme No.50 and thereby Final Plot No.158 was allotted to it. In November, 2002, Housing Society, Vibhag-5 sought nonagricultural permission for Survey No.64 and such permission was granted by the competent authority vide order dated 27.12.2002. In November, 2002, Housing Society, Vibhag-5 sought nonagricultural permission for Survey No.64 and such permission was granted by the competent authority vide order dated 27.12.2002. 5.3 Thereafter, Housing Society, Vibhag-5 was further bifurcated into two Cooperative Societies viz., (1) Shri Haseja Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Haseja Society” for short); and (2) Shri Gurunanak Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Gurunakak Society” for short) on 10.12.2004. Thereafter, Survey No.64 was measured by the DILR and demarcated into two separate portion being Survey No.64/1 and Survey No.64/2. Thereafter, Survey No.64/1 vested with Haseja Society, whereas Survey No.64/2 vested with Gurunanak Society. Thereafter, Mutation Entry No.7657 was posted in the revenue record, which was subsequently certified. 5.4 Thereafter, the petitioners purchased the subject land through registered sale deed, which was executed on 13.03.2008 and Mutation Entry No.8635 came to be mutated with regard to the aforesaid sale deed on 01.04.2008, which was subsequently certified. 5.5 The petitioners gave an application for conversion of the land for commercial purpose and necessary permission was granted by the competent authority on 18.04.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners applied to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation seeking construction permission, which was granted in the year 2015 and, thereafter, revised in the year 201718 and even BU permission is also granted on 26.04.2019. Thus, the petitioners have invested huge amount and constructed commercial complex on the subject land. Copies of the photographs of the subject land are produced on record at Annexure-O collectively. 5.6 In the year 2007, once again the Mamlatdar & ALT initiated tenancy case for investigation into Mutation Entries No.6877, 6878, 6879 and 6880, which were recorded and certified in the year 2001. However, the Mamlatdar & ALT by an order dated 15.09.2012 held that there is no violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and the aforesaid mutation entries are proper and there was no breach of Tenancy Act. 5.7 However, the said order of the Mamlatdar & ALT was taken into review by the Deputy Collector. However, the Deputy Collector did not interfere with the said order and confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT vide order dated 31.01.2013. 5.8 However, now the respondent – State challenged the order of the Deputy Collector, which was passed in the month of January, 2013 by filing Revision Application No.173/2019 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal” for short). 5.8 However, now the respondent – State challenged the order of the Deputy Collector, which was passed in the month of January, 2013 by filing Revision Application No.173/2019 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal” for short). Along with the said Revision Application, separate application for condonation of delay is also filed. However, now the impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal, whereby all the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to entire parcel of land of all the aforesaid Societies, which led to filing of the present petition. 6. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Joshi appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds, 6.1 Though the petitioners are the owners of the subject land, they are not joined as party to the proceedings filed before the Tribunal and the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6.2 Revision Application is filed after a period of more than six years and without condonation of delay, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order. 6.3 The subject land was granted NA permission in the year 2002 and, thereafter, NA permission for commercial purpose was also granted in the year 2009. Thus, when the competent authority has granted NA permission, powers under the Tenancy Act could not have been exercised by the respondent authorities. 6.4 The petitioners have obtained permission for commercial use of the subject land and, thereafter, the permission for the construction was obtained from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and now BU permission is also granted in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have passed the impugned order so far as the petitioners are concerned. 6.5 So far as Survey No.64 is concerned, the competent authority i.e. the Deputy Collector granted permission under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act on 05.10.1990 and, therefore also, it cannot be said that there is violation of Tenancy Act so far as the subject land i.e. Survey No.64 is concerned. 7. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon following decisions, (1) judgment in case of Adambhai Sulemanbhai Desai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2004 (1) GLR 906 ; (2) judgment in case of Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 (3) GLR 2587 ; (3) judgment in case of Ravichand Manekchand Sheth Vs. 7. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon following decisions, (1) judgment in case of Adambhai Sulemanbhai Desai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2004 (1) GLR 906 ; (2) judgment in case of Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 (3) GLR 2587 ; (3) judgment in case of Ravichand Manekchand Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2006(2) GLR 1567 . 8. Thus raising aforesaid contentions and relying upon above decisions, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, Mr. Kamal Trivedi has opposed this petition and at the outset contended that the Tribunal has passed adinterim order and the matter is pending before the Tribunal and, therefore, this Court may not entertain this petition. He submitted that at the most, the date of hearing before the Tribunal can be preponed. It is further contended that against the adinterim relief granted by the Tribunal, the petition is not maintainable. In support of the said contention, learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.6487/2018 and the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.11254/2018 as well as the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dena Bank Vs. D.V. Kundadia, reported in (2011) 15 SCC 690. 9.1 Learned Advocate General, thereafter, contended that when the Mamlatdar & ALT and the Deputy Collector have passed orders, which are null and void, limitation period would not be applicable when the Revision Application is now filed challenging the said orders before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the question of delay in initiation of the proceedings cannot be put in straight jacket and has to be examined in facts of each case. He, therefore, submitted that thus merely because Revision Application is filed after a period of six years, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction. In support of the said contention, learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the order dated 22.08.2008 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2952/2008 and allied matters. In support of the said contention, learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the order dated 22.08.2008 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2952/2008 and allied matters. 9.2 It is further contended that now the application is filed before the Tribunal for joining the present petitioners and other interested persons as party respondents on 14.11.2019. He further submitted that because of impugned order, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners. 9.3 Learned Advocate General also referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 and submitted that this Court may not interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the present petition may be dismissed. 10. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that the dispute in the present petition is with regard to Survey No.64, for which, necessary permission was granted by the competent authority on 05.10.1990 under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. Thus, it is clear that so far as subject land is concerned, the competent authority granted permission and, thereafter, necessary entry was mutated in the revenue record, which was certified. The subject land thereafter came into the possession of Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-1 in the year 1995. It is pertinent to note that in February, 1997, the Mamlatdar & ALT initiated proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act against the Kheti Mandali, however, the said proceedings were dropped vide order dated 13.06.1997 and necessary entry was also mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, Kheti Mandali, Vibhag-1 was bifurcated into Housing Society, Vibhag-1 and Vibhag-2 and thereafter Housing Society, Vibhag-1 was bifurcated into three different Cooperative Societies i.e. Housing Society, Vibhag-3, Housing Society, Vibhag-4 and Housing Society, Vibhag-5 and necessary entries were also mutated in the revenue record. 11. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that it is not in dispute that in the year 2002, Survey No.64 was allotted Final Plot No.158 and NA permission for residential use was granted to the said land. Copy of said order is placed on record at Page No.47 of the compilation. 12. It is further reflected from the record that Housing Society, Vibhag-5 was further bifurcated into two Societies viz., Haseja Society and Gurunanak Society and Gurunanak Society received Final Plot No.158/2 admeasuring 2326 Sq.Mtrs. Copy of said order is placed on record at Page No.47 of the compilation. 12. It is further reflected from the record that Housing Society, Vibhag-5 was further bifurcated into two Societies viz., Haseja Society and Gurunanak Society and Gurunanak Society received Final Plot No.158/2 admeasuring 2326 Sq.Mtrs. It further transpires that in the year 2007, once again the Mamlatdar & ALT initiated proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act. In the meantime, the petitioners have purchased the subject land from Gurunanak Society vide registered sale deed dated 13.03.2008. After the purchase of the subject land, the petitioners submitted an application for the grant of NA permission for commercial purpose for the subject land and the said permission was granted by the competent authority vide order dated 18.04.2009. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have thereafter sought permission for construction, which was granted by the competent authority and after the construction is over, BU permission is also granted on 26.04.2019. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they have invested huge amount and constructed commercial complex. 13. It is also not in dispute that the proceedings initiated under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act by the Mamlatdar & ALT was dropped in the year 2012 and the said order was taken into review by the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Collector also confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT vide order dated 31.01.2013. 14. In the aforesaid background of the facts of the present case, now it is revealed that Revision Application is filed in the month of October, 2019 before the Tribunal challenging the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT as well as the Deputy Collector. The said Revision Application is filed after a period of more than six years and along with the said Revision Application, separate application for condonation of delay is also filed. However, it is not in dispute that no order is passed by the Tribunal for condonation of delay in filing the said Revision Application. 15. So far as the petitioners are concerned, as observed hereinabove, permission was granted for the subject land by the competent authority under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act on 05.10.1990 and, therefore on merits, so far as Survey No.64 is concerned, it cannot be said that there is violation of provision of the Tenancy Act. 16. 15. So far as the petitioners are concerned, as observed hereinabove, permission was granted for the subject land by the competent authority under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act on 05.10.1990 and, therefore on merits, so far as Survey No.64 is concerned, it cannot be said that there is violation of provision of the Tenancy Act. 16. Further so far as the petitioners are concerned, for the subject land i.e. Survey No.64, NA permission for residential use was granted in the year 2002. Further after the petitioners have purchased the subject land, NA permission for commercial purpose was also granted by the competent authority and, therefore, once NA permission is granted, the provision of the Tenancy Act would not be applicable. 17. At this stage, the observation made by this Court in case of Adambhai Sulemanbhai Desai (supra) is required to be kept in mind. In the said judgment, this Court in Para No.24 has observed as under, “24. The last contention regarding non applicability of provisions of the Act to a land which is permitted to be converted into non agricultural land by a competent Court also merits acceptance in light of settled legal position enunciated by the aforesaid two decisions of this Court. It is apparent that once the land is declared to be non agricultural Permission granted by the competent authority the said land loses its characteristic of agricultural land and would not be a ‘land’ within the meaning of Section 2(8) of the Act. If this be the position, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the land in question and the Deputy Collector could not have entertained the statutory power under the Act including entertaining of appeal under Section 74 of the Act.” 18. Even in a judgment in case of Ravichand Manekchand Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), this Court has observed in Paragraphs-9(ii) and (viii) as under: “9.(ii) Looking to the facts of the present case, it seems that after certification of the mutation Entry No. 2605 on 31st August, 1989, the petitioner No. 1 had applied for Non-Agricultural Use of the land (popularly known as N.A. use permission) under Sec. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The N.A. permission was also granted by the concerned authority on 22nd October, 1992 (Annexure "E" to the memo of the petition). The N.A. permission was also granted by the concerned authority on 22nd October, 1992 (Annexure "E" to the memo of the petition). By virtue of this N. A. permission granted by the concerned authority under Sec. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, the petitioner No. 1 incurred huge expenditure and converted the land of Survey No. 1137 into 20 subplots. These subplots have been transferred to the different purchasers by registered sale deeds. This alteration of possession, after grant of N.A. use permission and after, the expenditure incurred by the petitioner No. 1, creates an estoppel on the part of the respondent authority to issue a notice under any law, applicable to the agricultural land. N.A. use permission granted under Sec. 65 of the Code, 1879 is such a nontransparent wall that through which the respondent authority cannot see the green colour of an agricultural land. Now there will be bricks, cement and strength of steel. The only window, open for the respondent authority to see the agricultural land, is the violation of the conditions attached to the N.A. use permission. Violation of the conditions of the N.A. use permission are the windows of that nontransparent wall. Unless and until the breach of conditions of the N.A. use permission is established, the respondent authority, cannot issue any notice, pertaining to the agricultural land. In the present case, N.A. permission granted on 22nd October, 1992. Never the respondent authority have ever alleged the breach of any conditions of N.A. permission, and therefore, issuance of the notice dated 12th November, 1992 itself, under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 is not permissible, is illegal and is invalid, looking to the facts of the present case. Once the N.A. permission is given for any land, it ceased to be an agricultural land, and therefore, notice issued for alleged breach of Sec. 54 of the Ordinance, 1949 is not valid, and hence, all the subsequent order passed by all the authorities below deserve to be quashed and set aside. xx xxx xxx (vii) There is also an error committed by the authorities below while passing the impugned order. xx 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 Sec. 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. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by any of the authorities below as stated hereinabove. N.A. use permission is such nontransparent 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 Sec. 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. Dalai & Anr. It has been held by this Court in the case of Bipinchandra G. Dalai & Anr. V/s. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 1987 (2) GLH 127 especially in Para 9 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 Sec. 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 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 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 Sec. 65 of the Code. 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 Sec. 65 of the Code. As pointed out earlier, cases governed by Sec. 65 read with Sec. 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 power 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. yds., 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)” 19. Thus from the aforesaid two decisions, it can be said that once the land is declared to be NA one on the basis of the NA permission granted by the competent authority, the said land loses its characteristic of agricultural land and would not be a land within the meaning of Section 2(8) of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, the provision of the Tenancy Act would not apply to such land. Hence, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any order with regard to the subject land. 20. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is revealed that so far as the subject land i.e. Survey No.64 is concerned, the competent authority had already granted permission under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act in the year 1990. Further, for the subject land, NA permission was granted by the competent authority in the year 2002 and, thereafter, NA permission for commercial use was also granted in the year 2009. Hence, when the subject land is converted into nonagricultural land, provisions of the Tenancy Act would not be applicable and, therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision Application filed by the State. Thus, when the Tribunal has no jurisdiction so far as the subject land of the petitioners is concerned, the Tribunal could not have passed the order granting ad interim relief qua the subject land. Thus, the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even against the ad interim order passed by the Tribunal, which is without jurisdiction, can be entertained by the High Court. Thus, in the facts of the present case as discussed hereinabove, the orders upon which reliance is placed by the learned Advocate General would not render any assistance to him. 21. I am inclined to entertain the petition on the aforesaid grounds and, therefore, so far as the other contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners with regard to delay, violation of principles of natural justice etc. are concerned, it would not be necessary to consider the said contentions in the present order and the said contentions are kept open to be decided in an appropriate case. 22. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/173/2019 is hereby quashed and set aside so far as the petitioners are concerned. Even Mutation Entry No.12370 dated 16.10.2019 based on the impugned order is also hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.