Executive instructions cannot be applied retrospectively to divest vested rights crystallized under statutory conversion rules.

The Petitioners held leasehold rights for nearly 30 years over a plot in Versova, Mumbai, used for a petrol pump.

In April 2021, the Collector (Respondent No. 4) granted permission to convert these rights into "Occupancy Class-I" (freehold) upon payment of a premium of approx. ₹6.39 crores under the 2019 Conversion Rules.

Respondent No. 5 (BPCL), a sub-lessee whose sub-lease expired in September 2020, challenged this order.

On June 5, 2025, the Minister of Revenue (Respondent No. 2) exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC), setting aside the conversion.

The Minister relied on a Government Resolution (GR) dated July 14, 2021, which prohibited conversion of lands used for essential services.

The Petitioners challenged this revisional order under Article 226.

1. Whether the concerned Authority could apply the Government Resolution dated 14th July, 2021 retrospectively to invalidate a conversion order passed prior to its issuance.

2. Whether Respondent No. 5 (BPCL), as a sub-lessee whose term had expired, had the locus standi to challenge the conversion order in revision.

The Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Occupancy Class-II and Leasehold Lands into Occupancy Class-I Lands) Rules, 2019, which govern the eligibility for land conversion.

The principle that executive instructions/Government Resolutions cannot override statutory rules or take away vested rights retrospectively, citing Vanshakti v. Union of India and Uday Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar.

Under Section 257 of the MLRC, the Revisional Authority’s jurisdiction is supervisory and limited to the legality/propriety of subordinate orders, not the adjudication of civil contractual disputes between private parties.

Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding "holding over" by a tenant.

The court reasoned that the GR dated July 14, 2021, was purely an executive instruction and used prospective language like "in the future" and "henceforth," thus it could not invalidate the Collector’s Order passed in April 2021.

Since the 2019 Rules did not prohibit conversion of petrol pump sites, the Petitioners had a crystallized right upon payment of the premium.

Regarding locus standi, the court found that conversion is a matter strictly between the State (lessor) and the Petitioner (lessee); BPCL, whose sub-lease had expired and who held no proprietary interest in the land under its contract, was a "stranger" to the conversion process.

The court held that the Minister exceeded his jurisdiction by trying to adjudicate civil/contractual disputes regarding BPCL’s investments, which is the domain of a Civil Court, not a Revenue Authority under Section 257 of the MLRC.

The court noted that a Tahsildar’s report had already confirmed no breaches of lease conditions existed at the time of conversion.

The court answered Issue 2 in the negative, finding BPCL had no locus standi.

The High Court quashed the Minister's order dated June 5, 2025, restored the Collector’s Order dated April 20, 2021, and declared the conversion of the subject property to Occupancy Class-I as valid and subsisting.