JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14th December, 2004 passed by the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Office, Sabarkantha District Panchayat, Himmatnagar as well as the order dated 25th January, 2006 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department. By the order dated 25th January, 2006, the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, has rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14th December, 2004. By the said order dated 14th December, 2004, the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer, has while regularising the brickkiln of the petitioner, imposed 20 times assessment as a penalty. 2. Tersely stated are the facts:- 2.1 The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey Numbers 74/1, 74/2, 74/3 and 74/1/2 at Village Vadiyavir, Taluka: Idar, District Himmatnagar. The petitioner was desirous of putting up construction of the house in one of the survey numbers and thus, for the said purpose, needed soil for manufacturing of the bricks. The petitioner has made one lac bricks from the said brickkiln and the same were utilised for the purpose of constructing the house in one of the aforesaid land bearing Survey Numbers 74/2, admeasuring 3238 sq.mtrs. 2.2 The Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer, had passed an order dated 14th December, 2004 regularising the brickkiln by imposing penalty of 20 times the assessment as per the Government Resolution dated 20th September, 1984. In the said order, reference has been made to a decision taken by the District Panchayat, Sabarkantha vide resolution number 651 dated 18th November, 2004. It is in the said meeting, a decision was taken by the District Panchayat of imposing penalty of 20 times the assessment as per the Government Resolution dated 20th September, 1984 for regularising the brickkiln. 2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred a revision application under the provisions of Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) before the Principal Secretary (Appeals), who vide his order dated 30th January, 2006, rejected the revision application and confirmed the order dated 14th December, 2004 passed by the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer. 2.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders dated 14th December, 2004 as well as 25th January, 2006, the petitioner has preferred the present petition with the aforementioned prayers. 3. Mr. Vishrut Jani learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the activity which was undertaken by the petitioner was for constructing house for his personal use over the land bearing Survey No.74/2. The petitioner under a bona fide belief that the activity of making the bricks from the brickkiln, being for the purpose of constructing house, no permission was required. It is further submitted that even if one peruses contents of the Government Resolution dated 20th December, 1965, it categorically provides that if any activities, viz. improvement of the land, construction of well, or construction of the house, and if for the said purposes, the owner of the land make a provision of brickkiln for making the bricks, such activities cannot be construed as a non-agricultural activity. It is thus submitted that looking to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 20th December, 1965, no permission is required for the said purpose. Under the said belief, the petitioner without taking any permission had made the provision for brickkiln and the bricks produced thereof were utilised in the construction of the house. It is further submitted that since no permission was required by virtue of the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 20th December, 1965, there arises no question of any breach of any of the provisions of the Code and hence, consequent action of the respondents of passing the orders, is illegal and bad. 4. In support of his submission that the brickkiln as well as the bricks were utilised for his own purpose, it is submitted that the Talati-cum-Mantri, Vadiyavir Gram Panchayat itself had issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner indicating that the petitioner had made the provisions of brickkiln for the purpose of constructing house. Thus, it is submitted that looking to the certificate which had been issued by the Talati-cum-Mantri, Vadiyavir Gram Panchayat, the same substantiates the case of the petitioner that the bricks made from the brickkiln were used for the purpose of constructing the house. Accordingly, it is submitted that establishing the brickkiln for such purpose cannot be construed as a non-agricultural activity inviting imposition of penalty as per the Government Resolution dated 20th September, 1984. 5. Accordingly, it is submitted that establishing the brickkiln for such purpose cannot be construed as a non-agricultural activity inviting imposition of penalty as per the Government Resolution dated 20th September, 1984. 5. It is submitted that the order dated 14th December, 2004, makes a reference of the Government Resolution dated 20th September, 1984, issued by the State Government in its Revenue Department which provides for imposing penalty with respect to the non-agricultural activities undertaken by the person. By no stretch of imagination, the provisions of the said Government Resolution dated 20th September, 1984, can be made applicable to the facts of the present case. Assuming the permission for establishing a brickkiln and consequent usage of the bricks for constructing the house, was required and was not obtained by the petitioner, at the most, penalty imposed should have been nominal. 6. It is next submitted that a bare perusal of the order dated 14th December, 2004 passed by the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer suggests that the basis of passing the order dated 14th December, 2004 was the proposal of the Taluka Development Officer dated 16th June, 2004 as well as the resolution number 651 dated 18th November, 2004 passed by the District Panchayat, Sabarkantha. Neither the copy of the proposal of the Taluka Development Officer nor the copy of the resolution number 651 dated 18th November, 2004, was provided to the petitioner and thus passing of the order dated 14th December, 2004, is in breach of the principles of natural justice. 7. It is further submitted that clearly, the order dated 25th January, 2006 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), is a non-speaking order inasmuch as, except confirming the order dated 14th December, 2004 passed by the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer, no reasonings are coming forth in the said order dated 25th January, 2006. That the order being a non-speaking order, the same is in breach of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as, the petitioner has not been made known as to what are the grounds on which the penalty of 20 times assessment has been imposed on the petitioner. That the order being a non-speaking order, the same is in breach of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as, the petitioner has not been made known as to what are the grounds on which the penalty of 20 times assessment has been imposed on the petitioner. While concluding, it is thus submitted that the orders dated 14th December, 2004 as well as 25th January, 2006 passed by the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer as well as the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department respectively, are illegal and bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 8. As against this, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya learned Assistant Government Pleader while supporting the order dated 25th January, 2006 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, submitted that it is impermissible on the part of the petitioner to contend that no permission was required. In fact, the petitioner under the provisions of section 65 of the Code was obliged to take permission and since no permission was taken, the said act on the part of the petitioner was against the provisions of the Code. Thus, the order dated 14th December, 2004 imposing penalty and regularising the brickkiln is in the right earnest. It is further submitted that the order dated 25th January, 2006 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), cannot be said to be a non-speaking order. No other and further submissions are advanced on behalf of the respondent – State. 9. Mr. Manish J. Patel learned Advocate for the respondent No.2, submitted that the order dated 14th December, 2004 has been passed on the basis of the report dated 19th June, 2004 of the Taluka Development Officer wherein, it has been observed that no permission was obtained by the petitioner for the purpose of making the provision of brickkiln. It is further submitted that the proposal was placed before the District Panchayat and the District Panchayat, in its meeting dated 18th November, 2004, passed a resolution number 651 resolving to impose penalty of 20 times assessment upon the petitioner as per the Government Resolution dated 20th September, 1984. It is further submitted that in the absence of any permission by the petitioner for the purpose of the brickkiln, it cannot be said that either the Panchayat or the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer has committed any error in imposing the penalty. 10. It is further submitted that in the absence of any permission by the petitioner for the purpose of the brickkiln, it cannot be said that either the Panchayat or the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer has committed any error in imposing the penalty. 10. It is further submitted that the petitioner has out of the brickkiln made two lacs bricks and thus, necessary inference has to be drawn that these bricks must have been used for the purpose other than the purpose of constructing the house. It is thus submitted that the authorities, have rightly imposed the penalty upon the petitioner. 11. It is next submitted that the order dated 14th December, 2004, categorically observes that the act of creating the brickkiln without permission, has been regularised; meaning thereby, that the said brickkiln, has been utilised for the nonagricultural purpose and not for his personal use for constructing the house. 12. Mr. Manish J Patel, while placing on record of the captioned petition the copy of the resolution number 651, submitted that it records that no permission was obtained by the petitioner before making the provisions of brickkiln for the purpose of making the bricks. It is thus submitted that it cannot be said that the authorities, have proceeded on wrong presumption and have passed the orders. It is further submitted that no error can be said to have been committed by the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer while passing the order dated 14th December, 2004. It is thus submitted that the petition does not deserve to be entertained and is required to be dismissed. 13. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the passing of the order dated 14th December, 2004, no notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed. It is further discernible that the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has straightaway passed the order dated 14th December, 2004, imposing penalty of 20 times assessment as per the Government Resolution dated 20th September, 1984. It is further discernible that the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has straightaway passed the order dated 14th December, 2004, imposing penalty of 20 times assessment as per the Government Resolution dated 20th September, 1984. Moreover, the order dated 14th December, 2004, is passed on the basis of the report dated 19th June, 2004 of the Taluka Development Officer which was placed before the District Panchayat, Sabarkantha which in turn, vide its resolution number 651, had resolved to regularise the brickkiln by imposing penalty. Pertinently, the report dated 19th June, 2004 of the Taluka Development Officer as well as the copy of the resolution number 651 were never provided to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to offer his case, the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer, has conveyed the decision taken by the District Panchayat, Sabarkantha vide its resolution number 651 dated 18th November, 2004. The action on the part of the respondent No.2 in passing resolution number 651 and consequent order dated 14th December, 2004, suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. 14. It is also required to be noted that in the revision application filed by the petitioner before the Principal Secretary (Appeals), the petitioner, has specifically taken a stand that the petitioner has not been offered any opportunity and without offering any opportunity, the order has been passed. However, the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, without considering the said aspect, in a cryptic manner, has passed the order rejecting the revision application, thereby, the order dated 14th December, 2004 passed by the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer, stood confirmed. Learned advocate for the petitioner is justified in contending that the order dated 25th January, 2006 is a non-speaking order, for, a perusal of the order dated 25th January, 2006 clearly suggests that except recording the arguments of the petitioner and then simply affirming the decision of the District Panchayat vide resolution number 651 and consequent order dated 14th December 2004, no reasons, worth the name are recorded in support of the conclusion reached; that the action and order are proper and reasonable and do not warrant interference. 15. 15. At this juncture, an issue which arises for the consideration of this court is as to whether any permission was required by the petitioner under the provisions of the Code, when the land was used for making bricks for constructing the house of the petitioner and not for commercial purpose. For this purpose section 65 of the Code requires a reference. 16. Section 65 of the Code, provides that any occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture is entitled by himself, his servants, tenants, agents, or other legal representatives, to erect farm-buildings, construct wells or tanks, or make any other improvements thereon for the better cultivation of the land, or its more convenient use for the purpose aforesaid. It further provides that if the occupant wishes to apply his land to any other purpose or for other different non-agricultural purposes, then in that case, the Collector's permission shall in the first place be applied for by the occupant. Thus, a bare reading of sub-section (1) of section 65 of the Code, clearly permits any occupant of the land to erect farm-buildings, construct wells or tanks, or make any other improvements thereon for the better cultivation of the land and for which purpose, permission of the Collector is not required. The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 65 clearly permits the specified usage and as aforementioned, for which, no permissions are required to be taken by the occupant of the land from the Collector. 17. Adverting to the aspect of usage of brickkiln for constructing the house, it is required to be noted that the only document which is available, is the resolution number 651 of the District Panchayat wherein, it has been resolved to impose penalty of 20 times the assessment; however, the said resolution except mentioning that the permission was not procured by the petitioner does not suggest that the bricks which have been produced through the brickkiln, were used for the purpose other than the purpose of constructing the house. As is discernible from the record as well as the contents of the resolution number 651 of the District Panchayat, Sabarkantha which was made available for the perusal of the court and was produced on the record during the course of the hearing, it nowhere suggests that the brickkiln was used for the purpose other than the purpose of constructing the house. Further, there is nothing on record to substantiate that the brickkiln was used for commercial purpose. 18. Perceptibly, it is not even the case of the respondents that after the brickkiln was regularised, the same is till date being used by the petitioner for commercial purpose. Furthermore, apropos the query put by the court regarding the status of brickkiln, it has been informed by Mr. Manish J. Patel learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2, that presently the said brickkiln, is not in operation. Even Mr. Vishrut Jani learned Advocate for the petitioner, has stated at the bar that the brickkiln was used only for the limited purpose i.e. constructing house of the petitioner and for the limited duration. 19. Further, the contents of the circular / resolution dated 20th December, 1965 issued by the State Government in its Revenue Department which has clarified that if the occupants of the land for the purpose of better cultivation or for providing better facilities viz. constructing a well or house and for the said activities, if he is making a provision of brickkiln, the same is to be considered as an agricultural activity; however, if the bricks are being used for commercial purpose or for any other purpose, the same is to be considered as a non-agricultural purpose and accordingly, necessary steps shall be taken in that behalf. Thus, the State Government itself has formulated a policy considering the fact that if the bricks produced from the brickkiln are used for the purpose of constructing well, making house or for improvement of the land, the same be considered to be an agricultural activity. 20. Thus, as discussed hereinabove, considering the facts of the present case, the petitioner was not obliged to take any permission before using the bricks produced from the brickkiln established over the land of the petitioner for the purpose of constructing his house. Since the respondents, have not been able to buttress the submission that the bricks produced from the brickkiln were used for commercial purpose, the reliance on the Government Resolution dated 20th September, 1984, and consequent imposition of penalty of 20 times assessment, is erroneous and bad in law. 21. The view taken hereinabove is also supported by the judgment of this court in the case of Bijalbhai Bhagwanbhai Nakum vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2005(4) GLR 3258 . 21. The view taken hereinabove is also supported by the judgment of this court in the case of Bijalbhai Bhagwanbhai Nakum vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2005(4) GLR 3258 . This court, in somewhat similar set of facts, has observed and held that as per plain and simple reading of Section 65 of the Code, any occupant of the land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture is entitled to erect farm-buildings, construct wells or tanks or make any other improvements thereon for the better cultivation of the land or its more convenient use for the purpose of agriculture and if an agriculturist constructs a farm building or makes improvement over the land for the better and convenient use of the land for agricultural purposes, such use is not prohibited and on the contrary expressly permitted. This court, has further held that if the farmer has constructed a house or has made any construction over the land for better cultivation of the land or for some convenient use of the land for agricultural purpose, it cannot be said that such use is restricted as per the provisions of Section 65 of the Code. It is further held that it is only when the farmer has used the land for commercial activity of manufacturing bricks, or had it been the case where the farmer has allowed some third party to use the land for manufacturing of bricks, the same may stand on a different footing. 22. Under the circumstances, on all the counts the order dated 14th December, 2004 passed by the Secretary, Sabarkantha District Panchayat & District Development Officer as well as the order dated 25th January, 2006 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, are hereby quashed and set aside. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.