JUDGMENT :

VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned AGP waives the service of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State authorities.

2. Heard Mr. Vimal A. Purohit, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State authorities.

3. By way of the present petition, petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(21) In the premises aforesaid, Petitioners most humbly and respectfully prays that:

(A) YOUR LORDSHIP'S may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2023 passed by learned District Collector, in application no. (At Annexure Vadodara 31916202305951 A) and further be pleased to direct the learned District to Vadodara Collector, application for of allow use change permission preferred by the petitioners strictly under the ambit of the Section 65(A) of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879;

(B) the and final During pendency disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authority- Ld. District Collector, Vadodara to consider the application for grant change of use permission in light of the settled legal principle (Annexure A);

(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”

4. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 – District Collector wherein the petitioners application for revised Non-Agricultural (NA) permission bearing Application No. 31916202305951 dated 01.10.2023 was filed on the ground of deficit stamp duty upon the negative opinion of the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is in receipt of a valid NA permission since 2012 and for the deficit stamp duty separate proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, however, while considering the case of the petitioner for revised NA, the findings arrived at by the respondent no. 2 are beyond jurisdiction.

5. Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing survey No. 47 of Village: Kalali, Taluka: Vadodara (South), District: Vadodara (for short, “land in question”) was originally owned and occupied by Suryakant Shiva Patel and others. The petitioner i.e., Sonal Raju Shah and Nayna Bharat Patel purchased land bearing Survey No. 47 by way of registered Sale Deed No. 5965 dated 31.05.2011 from the original owner, mutation entry bearing No. 2023 dated 16.08.2011 for which came to be mutated and was duly certified. The petitioner preferred application under Section 65 of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, (for short, “the Code”) for grant of NA use permission, which was allowed by District Collector, Vadodara by order dated 08.08.2012 and the mutation entry came to be reflected in the revenue records as Mutation Entry No. 2130 on 26.09.2012.

5.1. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the share of Nayna Bharat Patel by way of registered Sale Deed No. 10446 dated 21.08.2014, pursuant to which Mutation Entry No. 2370 dated 19.09.2014 came to be mutated and was duly certified. The petitioner preferred application bearing No. 31916202305951 under Section 65(A) of the Code for grant of NA use permission and the said application came to be “filed” by District Collector by order dated 18.11.2023 on the ground of negative opinion of the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation with regard to the Mutation Entry No. 3019. It is the case of the petitioner that the order passed by the District Collector is vitiated on the ground that without perusing the revenue records, the application for grant of change of use is rejected in as much as the reference of Mutation Entry No. 3019 is given, wherein, there is question of payment of stamp duty. The District Collector failed to take into consideratio