Administrative delay in determining land premium cannot penalize applicants with higher subsequent Jantri rates.

The petitioners, joint owners of ancestral land (Final Plot No. 114, Althan, Surat), held the property under 'new tenure' with restrictions under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948

They applied for conversion to 'old tenure' on 07.10.2002

On 18.09.2003, the District Valuation Committee fixed the market value at Rs. 2,000–2,500/sq. mtr.; however, the State Revenue Department failed to approve this for over two years

Following a High Court direction in 2006 to decide the matter within three months, the Department instead ordered a revaluation, leading to a new valuation of Rs. 14,500/sq. mtr. on 29.03.2007

This too remained unapproved due to pending litigations regarding the validity of Section 43 and Circular dated 04.07.2008

During the current petition, an interim order dated 21.09.2017 compelled the petitioners to deposit Rs. 6,91,20,960 (based on a Jantri rate of Rs. 40,262) to facilitate development, without prejudice to their rights

1. Whether the delay in deciding the premium application can be attributed to the petitioners or constitutes administrative negligence by the state

2. Whether the state is entitled to charge premium at the higher Jantri rates prevailing at the time of final approval if the delay was caused by the state's own inaction

3. Whether the petition filed by a power of attorney holder remains maintainable after the death of one of the principals

Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, regarding restrictions on land transfer

Supreme Court precedent in Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, which established that while Jantri rates at the time of sanction apply, the Collector must decide applications within 90 days and cannot keep them pending indefinitely

Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, holding that an agency coupled with interest does not terminate upon death, citing Her Highness Shantadevi Pratapsinh Rao v. Savjibhai H. Patel

The court found that the Revenue Department exhibited "adamancy" and "total disrespect" toward multiple judicial orders by failing to approve valuations for nearly two decades

It noted that the Collector had twice submitted proposals (in 2004 and 2007) while the petitioners remained ready to pay, but the State Level Valuation Committee sat tight over the issues until new, higher-rate policies (2008 and 2011) were enacted

Applying the 90-day mandate from Gohil Jesangbhai, the court reasoned that the petitioners should not be penalized for administrative delays that spanned 13 to 24 years

The court dismissed the state's preliminary objection regarding the death of a petitioner, noting the power of attorney was coupled with interest and thus survived under Section 202 of the Contract Act

It quashed the order dated 22.01.2020 (which had applied the much higher 2017 rates) and directed the respondents to accept the premium based on the 2007 valuation of Rs. 14,500 per sq. mtr.

The Court ordered the state to refund the differential amount between the 2017 deposit (Rs. 6.91 Crore) and the 2007 rate calculation within eight weeks

Final Plot No. 114 was ordered to be converted from new tenure to old tenure accordingly