ORAL JUDGMENT

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, the 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 20.11.2023 passed by the learned District Collector, Vadodara in application no. 31916202305949 (At Annexure A) and further be pleased to direct the learned District Collector, Vadodara to allow application for Change of use permission preferred by the petitioners strictly under the ambit of the Section 65(A) of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879;

(B) During the and final 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 of 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 20.11.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 – District Collector wherein the petitioners application for revised Non-Agricultural (NA) permission bearing Application No. 31916202305949 dated 04.10.2023 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. 45 of Village: Kalali, Taluka: Vadodara (South), District: Vadodara (for the short, “land in question”) was originally owned and occupied by Suryakant Shiva Patel and others. Sonal Raju Shah i.e., the petitioner and Nayna Bharat Patel purchased land in question by way of registered Sale Deed No. 5964 dated 31.05.2011 from the original owner, pursuant to which Mutation Entry No. 2024 dated 16.08.2011 came to be mutated and duly certified.

5.1. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 65 of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, (for short, “the Code”) for grant of NA use permission, pursuant to which vide order dated 08.08.2012 District Collector, Vadodara granted NA permission and effect of the same was given vide Mutation Entry No. 2130 dated 26.09.2012.

5.2. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the share of Nayna Bharat Patel by way of registered Sale Deed No. 10447 dated 21.08.2014, pursuant to which Mutation Entry No. 2369 dated 18.09.2014 came to be mutated and duly certified. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 65(A) of the Code for grant of NA use permission from NA use to multipurpose NA use, which came to be numbered as Application No. 31916202305949. The said application came to be “Filed” by District Collector vide order dated 20.11.2023 on the ground of negative opinion by the Deputy Collector, Stamp duty Valuation with regard to the Mutation Entry No. 3019.

6. Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned advocate that while processing NA application, the District Collector has not taken into consideration the Entry No. 3019 in its true spirit and has not even verified whether the survey number mentioned in the said entry are subject matter involved in the revised NA application so far as th