IMPORTANT POINT
The conclusion of an administrative review requires the immediate consideration of pending applications for land conversion and NA permission from the original submission date, not as fresh applications.

JUDGMENT :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for learned advocate Mr. Yash Nanavaty for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent – State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner inter alia challenges orders dated 27.06.2023 and 28.06.2023, whereby the application of the petitioner for conversion of the land from restricted to unrestricted tenure for the purpose of non-agricultural use and the application for grant of NA permission had been consigned to file, more particularly on the ground that an order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara, in Tenancy Case No.1 of 2023 under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act was being subjected to review.

3. At the outset, it requires to be noted that pursuant to certain later developments, which this Court, will refer to herein after, while the matter could have been decided on a very short point, yet, since a legal issue is being raised, the Court is required to delve deeper into the factual and legal aspect involved.

4. To clarify as noted hereinabove, the application for conversion from restricted to unrestricted tenure for the purpose of non-agricultural use and the NA application itself were both consigned to file on the ground of an administrative review / Suo Motu revision (both the terms are being used since learned advocates for the rival sides are not ad idem as to the nature of proceedings and to this Court since the same would not any bearing on the principal issue, both the terms are being used) against the order of Mamlatdar was pending. The said review application came to be decided by the Deputy Collector, Vadodara, vide order dated 11.06.2024 in favour of the present petitioner. As noted hereinabove, in normal circumstances, the administrative review / Suo Motu revision having concluded in favour of the petitioner would automatically result in the orders impugned in the petition being interfered with by this Court with a further direction to the authorities concerned to consider the application preferred by the present petitioner afresh.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has in this regards, submitted that since in the interregnum, the assessment rate of the land in question has changed, therefore, asking the petitioner to file a fresh application, would result in the petitioner incurring unnecessary burden on account of no fault of his. It has been submitted that upon the impugned order being interfered with, the respondents may be directed to decide the original application afresh.

6. Such a contention has been vehemently objected to by the learned AGP for the State submitting that till the review against the order of the Mamlatdar was pending, the authorities being justified in not considering the application for conversion and the application for NA permission and upon the order being passed in favour of the petitioner in administrative review / Suo Motu revision, as a natural consequence, the petitioner would be required to file a fresh application and whereas the submission that the original application preferred by the petitioner be considered, may not be the correct position.

The controversy having been stated hereinabove, now the Court will examine the facts of the case.

7. It appears that the land in question was of the ownership of one Nilkantheshwar Mahadev Trust and whereas one Shri Fatehsang Dabhai Vaghela was the tenant of the land in question. The said Shri Fatehsang Vaghela executed an agreement in favour of Shri Chhatrasang Jinabhai Rathod, Shri Mansang Jinabhai Rathod, Shri Musabhai Mansingbhai Rathod on 20.09.1963 and whereas the said persons had commenced agricultural activities on the land in question. The said tenant had passed away in the year 1965, whereas on the other hand, the persons named had continued agricultural activities over the land in question. It appears that in the interregnum, the proceedings under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act came to be instituted and the names of Shri Chhatrasang