Important Point-Review jurisdiction must be specifically conferred by Statute.

C.L. Soni, J.

1. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

11(a) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24-7-2012 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Revision Application No. MVV/BKP/BHAVAN/1/2012 at Annexure-C.

(b) To quash and set aside the order dated 21-2-2012 passed by the Deputy Collector, Sihor at Annexure-B by holding the same to be illegal, without authority and without jurisdiction.

(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the impugned orders at Annexure-C and B respectively and direction be given to restore the order at Annexure-B granting stay in favour of the petitioners and in the meanwhile direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from undertany further developmental activities on the land in question.

(d) To grant any other appropriate and just reliefs.

By order dated 21-2-2012 Deputy Collector has granted permission under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (for short the Code) to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to use the land bearing Survey No. 1138 admeasuring 25495.00 sq. mtrs. situated in Vallabhipur, District - Bhavnagar (the land in question) for Non-Agricultural purpose. Such order is challenged by the petitioner by Revision Application No. 1 of 2012 before respondent No. 1 wherein interim relief is refused by rejecting the application vide order dated 24-7-2012.

2. The main thrust of grievance voiced in the petition is that Deputy Collector had earlier rejected the application of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for Non-Agricultural Permission. However, subsequently, Deputy Collector reviewed his decision, which is not permissible in the eye of law.

3. It is also averred in the petition that there are civil suits filed by the petitioner in connection with land in question, and therefore, the order made by the Deputy Collector needs to be interfered with by revisional authority and since the order of the Deputy Collector is without jurisdiction, the revisional authority committed serious error in refusing to grant interim relief.

4. The petition is opposed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by filing affidavit-in-reply wherein it is pointed out that the petitioner has not only no right to challenge the impugned orders but has abused process of law by taking out different proceedings. Respondent No. 2 has also filed affidavit-in-reply opposing the petition.

5. Mr. Upadhyaya, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is no power with the Deputy Collector to review his earlier order dated 24-1-2012 whereby the application of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 seeking Non-Agricultural Permission was rejected. Mr. Upadhyaya submitted that revisional authority has failed to consider the issue about competency of Deputy Collector in making the impugned order and just cursorily rejected the application for interim relief prayed for in the revision application without good reasons. Mr. Upadhyaya has relied on decision in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, 1971 (3) SCC 844, Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, 2010 (9) SCC 437, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Mawasi, 2012 (7) SCC 200 as well as R.R. Verma vs. Union of India, 1980 (3) SCC 402 so as to point that law is well settled that administrative authority has got no power to review its own decision unless there is specific provision in the Statute under which such authority exercises its administrative powers.

6. As against above arguments, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that present proceeding before this Court and the proceedings before the revisional authority and the Court are nothing but abuse of process of law as the petitioner with oblique motive is pursuing such remedies before different forums. Mr. Joshi submitted that the petitioner with other co-owners has signed sale-deed in respect of land in q