Collector cannot reject a premium application by challenging a prior tenure conversion order that has attained finality.

The petitioner sought to pay premium and obtain Non-Agricultural (N.A.) use permission for land that had been converted to "old tenure" for agricultural purposes by a Mamlatdar’s order dated 08/08/2002

Previous litigation involving the original vendor resulted in a Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) order dated 24/03/2015, which restored the grant in favor of the vendor

This GRT order was implemented following a subsequent High Court direction in SCA No. 20565 of 2016

The petitioner purchased the land via registered sale deed, and the mutation entry was recorded on 15/05/2024

On 19/07/2024, the Collector, Vadodara, rejected the petitioner's N.A. application on the grounds that the 15-year continuous possession requirement was not met and questioned the propriety of the 2002 agricultural conversion order

1. Whether the Collector had the jurisdiction to reject the application by questioning a 2002 conversion order and the merits of a title that had already attained finality through prior judicial proceedings

2. Whether the rejection was sustainable in the absence of any ongoing legal proceedings against the petitioner’s possession

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review administrative actions for legality and jurisdictional errors

It relied on the principle of finality of litigation, noting that once the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal restores a grant and such order is implemented via High Court direction, the revenue authorities cannot arbitrarily reopen settled issues or question the validity of old tenure conversions without following due process under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code

The court reasoned that the land's status as "old tenure" had been established since 2002 and the title was further validated by the GRT's 2015 decision, which had attained finality

The Collector's attempt to revisit the "justness" of the 2002 order or demand proof of continuous possession in a manner that contradicted these prior judicial mandates was found to be beyond the authority’s jurisdiction

The court observed that the petitioner was in possession and the mutation entry was duly recorded; furthermore, the State had not initiated any independent proceedings to challenge the petitioner's rights or the prior conversion

The Court held that the rejection was erroneous as it ventured into settled merits without jurisdiction

The petitioner was granted liberty to prefer a fresh application for payment of premium and N.A. use, which Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide in accordance with the Gujarat Land Revenue Code

The petition was allowed, and the Rule was made absolute