JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs, “(A) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.10.2014 passed by learned Special Secretary (Appeals), State of Gujarat at Annexure-A, declaring the same to be erroneous, illegal and unlawful; (B) to direct respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner farmers' cooperative society for permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 read with Rule 36(1)(f) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, keeping in mind the purpose and object of the petitioner farmers' cooperative society; (C) to direct the respondent authorities to consider application of the petitioner farmers' cooperative society for conversion of agricultural land into nonagricultural use with penalty and/or premium in accordance with law; (D) During the pendency and/or final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 29.10.2014 passed by learned Special Secretary (Appeals), State of Gujarat at Annexure-A; (E) xxx xxx xxx.” 2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Anand Yagnik appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Despiting granting sufficient opportunity, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4. 3. The facts of the case leading to filing of the present petition are as under, 3.1 The petitioner is a registered Cooperative Farmers' Society registered under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act at Puna in the year 1924 and the said Society is engaged in the occupation of selling cotton, rice, wheat, sugarcane and vegetables and other agricultural products grown by its member farmers of Surat District and sale the same at the highest price for the benefit of the member farmers. 3.2 The petitioner purchased the land bearing Block No.278 admeasuring 1,21,736 Sq.Mtrs. situated at moje Ambheta, Taluka : Olpad, District : Surat by two separate sale deeds dated 20.04.2000 and pursuant thereto, Mutation Entry No.3984 was recorded in the revenue record on 11.05.2000. 3.3 Thereafter, the petitioner got permission before putting up construction of godowns, weighbridge and other buildings from the competent authority on 07.12.2001 and, thereafter, the petitioner has put up the construction. 3.3 Thereafter, the petitioner got permission before putting up construction of godowns, weighbridge and other buildings from the competent authority on 07.12.2001 and, thereafter, the petitioner has put up the construction. 3.4 However, Mutation Entry No.3984 was taken into suo motu revision by the respondent – Collector by issuing show cause notice dated 18.12.2002 i.e. after a period of two years and seven months and the said powers were exercised at the instance of the Deputy Collector on the complaint filed by the farmers of Block No.277. In the said show cause notice, it is alleged that the agricultural land is purchased by a non-agriculturist i.e. the petitioner – Cooperative Society without taking permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “Tenancy Act”) and thereby sought explanation from the petitioner as to why the said mutation entry should not be cancelled. 3.5 On receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed reply and pointed out relevant aspects. However, grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent – Collector came to a conclusion that the agricultural land is purchased for nonagricultural use by the petitioner – Cooperative Society in violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, entry is required to be cancelled. Accordingly, the order came to be passed by the respondent – Collector on 20.02.2013. 3.6 Against the said order, the petitioner filed Revision Application before the respondent – SSRD and the respondent – SSRD, by impugned order, rejected the said Revision Application. Therefore, the present petition is filed. 4. Learned advocate, Mr. Anand Yagnik appearing for the petitioner has mainly contended that entry in question has been cancelled by the respondent – Collector on the ground that the agricultural land has been purchased by the non-agriculturist i.e. the petitioner – Cooperative Society and before the said transaction, permission under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act was not obtained from the competent authority. It is further submitted that in fact, the petitioner – society applied for conversion of the agricultural land into non-agriculture purpose in the year 2002, however, the same was rejected on the ground that the proceeding before the respondent – Collector was pending. It is further submitted that in fact, the petitioner – society applied for conversion of the agricultural land into non-agriculture purpose in the year 2002, however, the same was rejected on the ground that the proceeding before the respondent – Collector was pending. He submitted that once again, an application for the grant of NA permission was filed before the competent authority in the year 2006, however, the concerned respondent has not taken any decision. It is further contended by learned advocate for the petitioner that while rejecting the Revision Application, the respondent – SSRD has given direction to the Mamlatdar & ALT, Olpad to initiate proceeding under the provision of the Tenancy Act for violation of the provision of the said Act and the said aspect is to be noted in the revenue record. It is submitted that the respondent – SSRD while exercising power under the provision of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, could not have given direction to the authority under the Tenancy Act to initiate proceeding under the said Act. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in case of Evergreen Apartment Co-Op Housing Society Vs. Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State, reported in 1991 (1) GLR 113 . He has also placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in case of Janardan D. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1997 (1) GLR 50 as well as order dated 20.08.2020 delivered in Special Civil Application No.7543/2020. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Raval has opposed this petition and submitted that if there is violation of the provision of the Tenancy Act, the concerned revenue authority was duty bound to consider the same and, therefore, the concerned revenue authority ought not to have mutated entry in question in the revenue record. It is further submitted that the respondent – Collector has, therefore, initiated suo motu proceeding against the petitioner for cancellation of the entry in question and, thereafter, the entry has been cancelled after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He submitted that the Revision Application filed by the petitioner is also rejected by the respondent – SSRD and no error is committed by the respondent – SSRD while rejecting the said Revision Application. He submitted that the Revision Application filed by the petitioner is also rejected by the respondent – SSRD and no error is committed by the respondent – SSRD while rejecting the said Revision Application. He, therefore, submitted that this Court may not entertain the present petition. It is also submitted that the respondent – SSRD has given direction to the Mamlatdar & ALT to initiate proceeding under the Tenancy Act and by giving such direction also, no illegality is committed by the respondent – SSRD. It is, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed. 7. Learned AGP has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in case of Heirs of Haji Ismail Abdul Raheman Dadi Vs. Ramsing Motibhai Baria, delivered in Special Civil Application No.8360/1990. 8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through material placed on record, it would emerge that the petitioner has purchased the agricultural land in question by registered sale deed and in pursuant thereto, entry in question was mutated, which was certified on 11.05.2000. It is not in dispute that suo motu proceedings were initiated after a period of two years and seven months by the respondent – Collector and the respondent – Collector cancelled the entry in question on the ground that there is violation of provision of Tenancy Act and the Revision Application filed before the respondent – SSRD was also dismissed on the said ground. It is also revealed from the order that while passing the order by the respondent – SSRD, the respondent – SSRD has given direction to the respondent – Mamlatdar & ALT to initiate the proceeding under the Tenancy Act and to register a note in the revenue record with regard to the same. 9. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the decision upon which reliance is placed by learned advocates appearing for the parties in case of Evergreen Apartment Co-Op Housing Society (supra). In the said judgment, this Court has observed that the power of revision must be exercised within reasonable time. It is further held that “so far as the proceeding under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules popularly known as RTS proceedings are concerned, it is well settled that the entries made in the revenue records have primarily a fiscal value and they do not create any title. It is further held that “so far as the proceeding under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules popularly known as RTS proceedings are concerned, it is well settled that the entries made in the revenue records have primarily a fiscal value and they do not create any title. Such mutations have to follow either documents of title or the orders passed by the competent authority under special enactment. Independently the revenue authorities cannot pass orders of cancelling entries on an assumption that the transaction recorded in the entries are against the provision of a particular enactment”. It is further held that whether the transaction is valid or not, has to be examined by the competent authority under a particular enactment by following procedure prescribed therein. It is also held that the power conferred under one enactment cannot be exercised while dealing with the question under another enactment. 10. In case of Jayantilal J. Soni Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2005 (4) GLR 3354 , this Court has held that in a case where transfer of a land is made by registered sale deed, if the revenue authority is prima facie of the view that such transferred is barred under another enactment, then in that case, appropriate course for the revenue authority would be to record the entry for the registered sale deed with express observation that the registered sale deed is prima facie in breach of other enactment and the said entry should be made subject to final decision, which may be taken by the competent authority under other concerned enactment. 11. In case of Heirs of Haji Ismail Abdul Rahemand Dadi Vs. Ramsing Motibhai Baria delivered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.8360/1990, this Court has observed in Para No.4 that it is merely a direction to the concerned authority to initiate proceedings, however, no such proceedings have been initiated till date, therefore, no cause of action can be said to have arisen. 12. In the present case also, it is the specific case of the petitioner that as per the direction issued by the respondent – SSRD, the respondent – Mamlatdar & ALT has already issued show cause notice to the petitioner for alleged violation of provision of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, the aforesaid decision upon which reliance has been placed by learned AGP, would not render any assistance to him. 13. 13. Thus keeping in view the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court, if the facts of the present case, are carefully examined, it is revealed that the concerned revenue authority has mutated the entry in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, however after a period of two years and seven months, the suo motu proceedings were initiated by the respondent – Collector for cancellation of said entry. The entry in question has been cancelled by the respondent – Collector by observing that the petitioner has not obtained any permission under Section 63 of the Act. This Court is of the view that the decision taken by the respondent – Collector is to be set aside on the ground that the concerned authority has not committed any error while mutating the entry in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed. At the most, the direction can be issued to make an endorsement in the said entry that there is violation of provision of a particular act and, therefore, if the action is initiated under the said enactment, the said entry would be subject to final outcome of the said proceeding. Similarly, the respondent – SSRD has also wrongly confirmed the order passed by the respondent – Collector and on the contrary, the respondent – SSRD has given direction to the respondent – Mamlatdar & ALT to initiate proceeding under the Tenancy Act for the alleged violation of the provision of the Tenancy Act and on the basis of such direction, the respondent – Mamlatdar & ALT has already issued show cause notice to the petitioner. Thus, this Court is of the view that such direction is also required to be set aside. 14. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that prior to initiation of suo motu proceeding for alleged violation of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the petitioner has already filed an application for conversion of the land from agriculture to nonagricultural use under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, however, the said application was rejected but thereafter once again, the application for the grant of NA permission has been filed before the competent authority in the year 2006. Thus it is the specific case of the petitioner that the application for the grant of NA permission is pending before the competent authority and, therefore, the respondent authorities could not have initiated proceeding for cancellation of entry in question. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts of the present case, the impugned order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the respondent – SSRD in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/ST/31/2003 and the order dated 20.03.2003 passed by the respondent – Collector are quashed and set aside. Mutation Entry No.3984, which was recorded in the revenue record on 11.05.2000 pursuant to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, shall stand restored. However, endorsement shall be made that it is in alleged violation of provision of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, the said entry shall be subject to final outcome of the tenancy proceeding, which may be initiated against the petitioner. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the validity of the transaction with regard to alleged breach of the provision of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, the authorities are not precluded from proceeding further for the breach of said provision. It is open for them to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. It is also clarified that it is also open for the competent authority to consider the application filed by the petitioner for the grant of NA permission in accordance with law. 16. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.