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:

“(20) 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. 31916202305957 (At Annexure A) and further be pleased to direct the learned District Collector, Vadodara to allow application of Change for use permission preferred by the petitioners strictly under the ambit of the Section 65(A) of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879;

(B) During the final and 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. 31916202305957 dated 03.10.2023 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. 59 of Village: Kalali, Taluka: Vadodara City, District: Vadodara was originally owned and occupied by Rajesh Mulji Amin and others. That, Sonal Raju Shah i.e. wife of the petitioner, Bharat Chandrakant Patel and Snehalkumari D/o Jayantilal Gulabchand Shah purchased land bearing survey No. 59 admeasuring 13860 sq. mtr. by way of registered Sale Deed No. 8762 dated 29.07.2008 from the original owner, pursuant to which mutation entry no. dated 26.10.2008 came to be mutated and after 1795 due process of law entry came to be certified. Thereafter, Sonal Raju Shah i.e. w/o the petitioner, purchased land bearing Survey No. 59 admeasuring 1386 sq.mtr. out of total land admeasuring 13860 sq.mtr. by way of registered sale deed no. 8964 dated 25.09.2009 from Bharat Chandrakant Patel i.e. the co-owner, pursuant to which mutation Entry No. 1843 dated 13.10.2009 came to be mutated and was duly certified. Thereafter, Sonal Raju Shah i.e. wife of the petitioner, purchased land bearing Survey No. 59 admeasuring 2772 sq. mtr. out of total land admeasuring 13860 sq.mtr. by way of registered Sale Deed No. 9012 dated 29.09.2009 from Snehalkumari d/o Jayantilal Gulabchand Shah i.e. the co-owner, pursuant to which Mutation Entry No. 1844 dated 13.10.2009 came to be mutated and was duly certified.

5.1. That, the petitioner applied for grant of N.A. use permission, pursuant to which vide order dated 08.08.2012, District Collector, Vadodara allowed N.A permission and effect of the same was given vide Mutation Entry No. 2131 dated 26.09.2012. That, the Sonal Raju Shah i.e. wife of petitioner entered name of his legal heirs i.e. Rajubhai Bhailalbhai Shah i.e. the petitioner, Adit Rajubhai Shah and Ruchi Rajubhai Shah in revenu