( 1 ) RULE. Ms. Pandit, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel waives service of rule on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

( 2 ) THE only aspect which requires consideration is whether the Jt. Secretary of the State Government was right in rejecting the revision application on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the order passed by the District Development Officer (DDO) under Section 249 (4) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "act")

( 3 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner is the President of Executive Committee of Mundra Taluka Panchayat. The resolutions were passed by General Body of Taluka Panchayat on 12. 12. 2003, which included for the authorisation of power for converting the land into non-agricultural purpose to the executive committee of Taluka Panchayat. It appears that thereafter on 5. 2. 2004 another meeting of General Body of Taluka Panchayat was scheduled for considering the proceedings of the earlier meeting and one of the items in the agenda was primary approval of the budget. In the meeting dated 5. 2. 2004 vide Resolution No. 59 it was resolved by the General Body not to grant approval and set aside the proceedings of the earlier meeting dated 12. 12. 2003 and vide Resolution No. 65 it was resolved to withdraw the powers from the Executive Committee and to assign the said powers to the General Body of the Taluka Panchayat. It appears that he Taluka Development Officer (TDO), respondent No. 3 herein submitted a report to the DDO under Section 249 and thereafter the DDO has passed the order dated 23. 3. 2004, whereby he found that the proceedings of the resolution dated 5. 2. 2004 vide resolution No. 59 is illegal and, therefore, he suspended the said resolution. However, for resolution No. 65 it is found by him that as per the government resolution dated 26. 7. 1978 the powers for converting the land for non-agricultural purpose are assigned to Taluka Panchayat and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the resolution No. 65 and, therefore, the said resolution was not suspended.

( 4 ) IT appears that the petitioner preferred revision before the State Government under Section 259 of the Act against the decision of the DDO of not suspending the resolution No. 65 dated 5. 2. 2004 of the General Body of Taluka Panchayat. The said revision was initially entertained and interim stay was also granted by the State Government as per order dated 28. 7. 2004. Thereafter, on 31. 8. 2004 the State Government through its Jt. Secretary, Panchayat Department, has passed the order, whereby the revision is dismissed without examining the merits and it has been further observed that the petitioner has to prefer appeal under Section 249 of the Act before the Development Commissioner and it is under this circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring this petition.

( 5 ) HEARD Mr. Mankad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. D. S. Pandit, learned AGP for the State Government and Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3.

( 6 ) UPON hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that on factual aspects there is no dispute and the matter only arises for the interpretation and scope and ambit of the power of the State Government under Section 259 of the Act and also the scope and ambit of the power of the Competent Authority under Section 249 of the Act. Section 259 of the Act reads as under:"259. State Government may call for proceedings.- The State Government may call for and examine the record of proceeding of any panchayat or of any committee thereof, or of any officer for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed and may revise or modify the order as it shall deem just. "

( 7 ) ON the plain readin