( 1 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are owners of the land, applied for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purpose as per the application dated 2. 11. 2002. On 20. 1. 2003, the district Development Officer, Vadodara addressed a letter to the petitioners that the application is rejected for administrative reasons. It is the case of the petitioners that the communication by the District development Officer dated 20. 1. 2003 is not supported by any Resolution of the Executive Committee or any other committee of the District Panchayat and the District development Officer had no power to take the decision independently in absence of any Resolution of the committee.

( 2 ) IT appears that thereafter the petitioners moved an application to the District Panchayat for reconsideration of the case for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purpose. The said application was submitted on 28. 1. 2003. It appears that thereafter the executive Committee of the District Panchayat considered the matter and after following necessary procedure of inviting "no Objection Certificate" and recommendations from the Authority concerned on 7. 2. 2003, the permission is granted for converting the land for non-agriculture purpose. Respondent No. 3 who is claiming to have the tenancy right over the land in question belonging to the petitioners preferred revision before the State government under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and in the said revision the State Government found that there is no power of review with the District Panchayat to accord permission under Section 65 of the Code and, therefore, consequently the order of the Executive Committee of the district Panchayat granting permission under Section 65 of the Code was set aside by allowing the revision as per the order dated 19. 7. 2003 and it is under this circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by preferring this petition.

( 3 ) SO far as the status of respondent No. 3 is concerned, even in the affidavit-in-reply filed in this petition, it has been admitted that the respondent No. 3 has not been able to succeed for claiming the tenancy right over the land in question upto the level of the Dy. Collector. However, it has been stated in the said affidavit that the revision is pending before the Gujarat revenue Tribunal and the said revision is admitted. Therefore, at the most the status quo of respondent No. 3 can be said as that of the person claiming the tenancy right over the land in question, but as such it cannot be said that Respondent No. 3 is directly connected with the issue for grant of permission under Section 65 of the code. It may not be necessary for this Court to express any final opinion on the locus of respondent No. 3, because the fact remains that the State Government entertained the revision at the instance of respondent no. 3 and the matter is considered on merits and, therefore, the said issue is kept open.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid takes me to examine the merits of the order passed by the State Government in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. If the facts are considered, it appears that the District Development officer communicated as per the order dated 27. 1. 2003 that the application is rejected and in the said communication there is no reference to any resolution being passed by the Executive Committee rejecting the application or by the General Body of the District panchayat rejecting the application. It appears that the petitioner having learnt about the aforesaid communication moved the application to the District panchayat for review and thereafter the matter was once again considered by the District Panchayat and the order dated 7. 2. 2003 was passed granting permission for non-agriculture purpose. It is well settled that no such bar of review applies in the decision which are having administrative character. If it is a decision in capacity