JUDGMENT :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati for learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Beg for the petitioner, learned AGP Ms. Dharitri Pancholi for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and learned Advocate Mr. Jaimin R. Dave with learned Advocate Mr. Priyank S. Dave on behalf of the caveator, respondent No. 4 herein.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the revisional authority i.e. respondent No. 2 herein, whereby challenge to an order dated 12.10.2019 by the Collector, Vadodara granting Non-Agricultural Permission with regard to the land in question has been rejected and the original order is confirmed.

3. The controversy is with regard to a land bearing Revenue Block No. 64 (previously Revenue Survey No. 93) situated at village Vemali, Taluka Vadodara, District Vadodara. It appears that the land was of the ownership of one Mohanbhai Parmar and whereas upon his demise the land had devolved upon his legal heir one Shri Chhaganbhai Parmar. It appears that the said Chhaganbhai Parmar had bequeathed the land in question to the mother of the respondent No. 4 by way of a Will dated 01.03.2000. It appears that entry with regard to the said Will had been mutated in the revenue records vide Entry No. 1345. It further appears that descendants of late Chhaganbhai Parmar including the mother of the present petitioner but excluding the petitioner herself, had preferred a Civil Suit No. 759 of 2013 before the learned Civil Judge, Vadodara and whereas upon settlement between the plaintiffs and the defendant being mother of the respondent No. 4, the suit had been withdrawn. It further appears that the settlement had been reduced in writing and whereas an amount of approximately Rs. 21 Lacs had been paid to the heirs of Chhaganbhai Parmar and further an amount of Rs. 14 Lacs appears to have been paid by respondent No. 4 to a third party on behalf of and with consent of legal heirs of late Chhaganbhai Parmar. The suit appears to have been withdrawn vide an order dated 05.10.2019. It appears that since the land in question was of a restricted tenure, therefore the petitioner made an application on 11.07.2017 for removal of such restriction and permitting conversion to unrestricted/old tenure land. The Collector, Vadodara vide an order dated 18.09.2019 had permitted conversion of the land from restricted to unrestricted tenure for commercial purpose upon certain conditions and whereas the order further reveals that the respondent No. 4 had paid premium of approximately more than 3 Crores to the Government. It further appears that the respondent No. 4 had applied for conversion of the land in question into nonagricultural use and whereas the Collector, Vadodara vide an order dated 12.10.2019 had permitted such use.

4. The petitioner claiming to be a descendant of late Chhaganbhai Parmar had challenged the order dated 12.10.2019 permitting conversion of the land to non-agricultural use before the revisional authority. The petitioner had inter-alia contended before the revisional authority that since she was not a party to the Civil Suit preferred by her family members including her mother and since she had not received any amount of settlement, therefore she could prefer the revision application. The petitioner had also sought to challenge order of the Collector granting Non-Agricultural Permission on the ground that the respondent No. 4 was not an agriculturist and therefore the petitioner had initiated proceedings under Section 84C of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act with regard to the order dated 18.09.2019 which permitted conversion of the land to old tenure/unrestricted tenure. The revisional authority vide the order impugned had not accepted the contentions of the petitioner and had rejected the revision application and challenging the same the petitioner has preferred this petition.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati for the petitioner has submitted t