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, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:

“((23) 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 24.01.2024 passed by the learned District Collector, Vadodara in application no. 31916202308477 (At Annexure-A) and further be pleased to direct the learned District Collector, application Vadodara to allow of use for change permission preferred by the petitioners strictly under the ambit of the Section 65(A) of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879; (at Annexure A)

(B) During the pendency and final 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 24.01.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 – District Collector wherein the petitioners application for revised Non-Agricultural (NA) permission bearing Application No. 31916202308477 dated 09.12.2023 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. 24 of Village: Kalali, Taluka: Vadodara (South), District: Vadodara (for short, “land in question”) was originally owned and occupied by Narendra Ravji Patel, i.e. husband of the petitioner purchased land in question by way of registered Sale Deed No. 4318 dated 25.05.2006 from the original owner, pursuant to which Mutation Entry No. 1538 dated 19.07.2006 came to be mutated and duly certified.

5.1. Raju Bhailalbhai Shah entered name of his legal heirs, namely, Sonal Raju Shah i.e. the petitioner, Adit Raju Shah and Ruchi Raju Shah as co-owner in the revenue record of the land in question, pursuant to which Mutation Entry No. 1968 dated 23.11.2010 came to be mutated and certified. Raju Bhailalbhai Shah relinquish his rights in favour of other family members vide Mutation Entry No. 2086 dated 17.03.2012.

5.2. By order dated 05.08.2013, the District Collector, Vadodara granted N.A. use permission to the petitioner, pursuant to which Mutation Entry No. 2201 dated 19.08.2013 came to be mutated and certified. Further, Ruchi Raju Shah and Adit Raju Shah relinquished their rights in favour of the petitioner vide Mutation Entry No. 2271 dated 03.03.2014. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 65 (A) of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, (for short, “the Code”) for grant of NA use permission which came to be numbered as application no. 31916202308477. The said application came to be “Filed” by District Collector vide order dated 24.01.2024 on the ground of negative opinion received from Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation with regard to the Mutation Entry No. 3019. The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the present petition.

6. Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned advocate that while