JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kinkheswala, learned advocate for Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Patel, learned AGP. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: "[8] (B) THIS HONOURABLE COURT be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be further pleased to quash and set aside the Notification dated 28th July, 2004 issued by the District Development Officer, Vadodara - the respondent No. 2 and further be pleased to hold and declare that the Notification dated 28th July, 2004 issued by the present respondent No. 2 is absolutely illegal, illogical and arbitrary and in breach of the provision of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972. 3. The petitioner has taken out present petition at notice stage, i.e. when the petitioner received notice dated 12.3.2005 for the assessment of non-agricultural use of land in question. 3.1 Instead of submitting reply in response to the Notice on such ground as may be available in law against the demand raised by virtue of the notice dated 12.3.2005 and instead of waiting for appropriate decision by the authority, the petitioner rushed to this Court immediately upon receipt of the notice dated 12.3.2005 and filed this petition challenging the said notice. 3.2 The petitioner has also challenged, in 2007, notification dated 28.7.2004 whereby the respondent State prescribed rates for non-agricultural assessment. 4. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the petition that the petitioner has claimed that he holds land admeasuring 2.14.48 hectares bearing Block No. 234-A-B at Village: Bamroli, Taluka: Sankheda, District: Vadodara. 4.1 It has also emerged from the record that the petitioner claims that he purchased the said land somewhere in 1996. 4.2 It has further emerged from the record that the land owner had submitted an application seeking non-agricultural use permission in respect of the land in question. 4.3 The said application was granted subject to certain conditions vide order dated 8.12.1995. 4.4 The petitioner has claimed that after the said order dated 8.12.1995, the petitioner continued to use the land in question for non-agricultural use. 4.5 The petitioner has further asserted in the petition that after the order dated 8.12.1995 came to be passed, he had been making payment as per the non-agricultural assessment every year regularly. 4.4 The petitioner has claimed that after the said order dated 8.12.1995, the petitioner continued to use the land in question for non-agricultural use. 4.5 The petitioner has further asserted in the petition that after the order dated 8.12.1995 came to be passed, he had been making payment as per the non-agricultural assessment every year regularly. 4.6 According to the petitioner in 2004 the respondent State issued notification dated 28.7.2004 whereby the rates of non-agricultural assessment came to be increased 10 times from the rates which prevailed before 28.7.2004, whereas the rates for commercial use came to be revised/increased by 25 times. 4.7 Subsequently, the authority issued notice and called upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 40,314/- towards outstanding amount of non-agricultural assessment. 5. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the notice came to be issued in 2005, whereas the petitioner preferred present petition in 2007. 5.1 From the record of present petition, it has emerged that somewhere in 2008 the petitioner filed an undertaking. The said undertaking is placed on record of present petition, which reads thus: "I, Kothari Dhanraj Bhagwanbhai, petitioner in the aforesaid Special Civil Application, file this undertaking pursuant to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, as under: I have been using the land bearing Block No. 234-A-B admeasuring 2.14.48 H. situated at village Bamroli, Taluka Sankheda, District: Baroda for residential use and I will continue to use the land in question for residential purpose. I hereby undertake that I will not use the land in question for any other purpose except residential use and if in future, I use the land in question for any purpose other than residential, then I will take necessary permission of the Competent Authority and I will pay non-agricultural assessment accordingly. I also undertake that I will continue to pay non-agricultural assessment in respect of the land in question as per the order that may be passed in the aforesaid petition, together with arrears. Solemnly declared at Ahmedabad on this 11th day of Dec., 2008." 6. At the time of hearing of this petition, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the notification issued by the respondent State is arbitrary. Solemnly declared at Ahmedabad on this 11th day of Dec., 2008." 6. At the time of hearing of this petition, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the notification issued by the respondent State is arbitrary. He submitted that the respondent State has revised the rates 10 times so far as residential use is concerned and the rates are revised 25 times so far as the commercial use is concerned and the extent by which the rates are revised, demonstrates that the authority fixed the rates arbitrarily and therefore, the notification deserves to be set aside. 7. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent panchayat opposed the petition. He relied on the details mentioned in the reply affidavit dated 6.9.2008. In the said affidavit, the respondent panchayat has averred and stated that: "2. The respondent No. 3 humbly states that one Mr. Bhikabhai Ranchhodlal Patel who was the owner and in possession of a piece of land bearing Block No. 234 (Paiki) admeasuring 41,156 sq.meters approached the respondent No. 3 through an application dated 19/09/1994 requesting fir bib agricultural use of the land. The respondent No. 3 submits that the application was to use the land for non agricultural purpose by way of keeping the same as open land to keep the bricks, wood etc. it is humbly stated that the said application was processed as per the procedure and through orders dated 08/12/1995 non agricultural usage permission was granted by the respondent to use the same for non agricultural purpose by way of keeping the same open land. It is submitted that thereafter as stated by the petitioner herein the same was purchased by him through a registered Sale Deed in the year 1996 and therefore, he is liable to pay the revenue accordingly. It is most respectfully stated that the petitioner was to pay the revenue and other taxes as per the prevailing rates determined by the State Government as well as District Development Officer, Vadodara. 3. It is most respectfully stated that the Government of Gujarat through its Revenue Department issued a notification dated 26/12/2003 through which modification were made with regard to the classification of the Villages as well as for the method and manner of the assessment. 3. It is most respectfully stated that the Government of Gujarat through its Revenue Department issued a notification dated 26/12/2003 through which modification were made with regard to the classification of the Villages as well as for the method and manner of the assessment. The respondent No. 3 states that thereafter the respondent No. 2 as competent authority issued a notification dated 28/07/2004 through which the Villages situated in Panchayat areas were classified in three categories namely, A, B & C for the assessment with effect from 01/08/2003. It is submitted that so far as the Village Bamroli is concerned, it is placed under category "C" on the basis of population. It is humbly stated that the rates were also revised to 25 paise per sq.meter for the use of such land for other purpose. It is stated that if the land is converted into non agricultural land for residential purpose or charitable purpose, then only it is to be charged 10 paise per sq.meter if the land falls under category "C". 4. The respondent No. 3 most respectfully states that in view of the notification dated 28/07/2004, the petitioner herein is liable to pay the revenue at the revised rates with effect from 01/08/2003 and therefore, the petitioner herein was issued demand notice on the basis of revised category and rates. It is most respectfully stated that the petitioner has not at all made any payment since the revised rates have come into force and issued a baseless notice through his Advocate in the year 2005 which was suitably replied on 31/03/2005 by the respondent No. 3 giving full details. However, the petitioner has yet not made any payment and approached this Hon'ble Court by way of filing the present Special Civil Application. 5. It is most respectfully stated that the petitioner is liable to make the payment as the land in question is falling under "C" category as per the notification dated 28/07/2004 issued by the respondent No. 2 subsequent to the notification dated 26/12/2003 issued by the State Government. It is stated that the challenge to the said notification dated 28/07/2004 is without any base and substance and it is further stated that the said notification is implemented since 01/08/2003 throughout the District of Vadodara. 6. It is stated that the challenge to the said notification dated 28/07/2004 is without any base and substance and it is further stated that the said notification is implemented since 01/08/2003 throughout the District of Vadodara. 6. It is most respectfully submitted that subsequently the Government of Gujarat has issued a circular dated 31/05/2006 through its Revenue Department through which the rates per sq.meter are revised to 15 paise instead of 25 paise per sq.meter so far as the land situated within the Village of "C" category are concerned. It is stated that the same is made applicable with effect from 01/08/2003 and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay accordingly. It is most respectfully stated that the said circular is issued by the Government of Gujarat pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat passed in Civil Writ Petitions and therefore, it is clear that the present Special Civil Application preferred by the petitioner challenging the notification dated 28/07/2004 on the ground of re-categorization of Villages into "C" category as well as revision of rates are illegal, unjust and bad in law, has no substance. It is to be noted that the land in question is not converted into non agricultural land for residential purpose and as per the application of the original land owners, the competent authority has granted non agricultural usage permission to use the land as open land and the assessment is made by the authority accordingly." 7.1 Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent panchayat further submitted that the notification is issued after taking into account all relevant aspects and the determination of the rates is based on proper data and all relevant factors and that, therefore, the determination of the rates cannot be termed arbitrary or unjust or unreasonable and that, therefore, the challenge against the notification may be rejected. 8. I have considered rival submissions and material available on record including the notification. 9. For more than one reasons, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. First, the notification came to be issued in 2004, whereas the petitioner filed present petition in July 2007 i.e. almost three years after the notification was issued. 9.1 In the meanwhile, i.e. between July 2004 to July 2007, the operation of the notification was not stayed. Thus, the said notification has remained in operation from July 2004. First, the notification came to be issued in 2004, whereas the petitioner filed present petition in July 2007 i.e. almost three years after the notification was issued. 9.1 In the meanwhile, i.e. between July 2004 to July 2007, the operation of the notification was not stayed. Thus, the said notification has remained in operation from July 2004. 9.2 Even after the petitioner filed present petition, any relief against the said notification is not granted by the Court. The operation of the said notification is not stayed by any order of this Court. Thus, by now the said notification has remained in force for almost 17 years. 10. In view of the fact that the petitioner filed present petition three years after the notification was issued, the petition does not deserve to be entertained and the relief prayed for by the petitioner does not deserve to be granted. 11. Besides this, the fact that the petitioner challenged the said notification after almost three years cannot be ignored. The said delay renders the petitioner unsustainable and after such delay the notification does not deserve to be disturbed. 12. Third reason for rejecting the petitioner's challenge against the notification is that the scope of judicial review against the notification issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by the Act, is very limited. The legality and validity of the notification has to be examined within the limited scope of judicial review. The Court would interfere with such notification only if the powers exercised by the State Government exceed the authority conferred on the State Government by the statute or the notification, which is a piece of subordinate legislation, is found to be discriminatory or grossly arbitrary. 12.1 When impugned notification is examined keeping in focus limits of judicial review, it comes out that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground against the notification, much less any ground to establish that the notification is discriminatory and/or that the rates revised/increased by virtue of the notification are grossly arbitrary. 12.2 Any material or data to demonstrate arbitrariness in the rates determined by the notification is not placed on record. 12.2 Any material or data to demonstrate arbitrariness in the rates determined by the notification is not placed on record. 12.3 Except stating that the rates in respect of residential use are increased 10 times and in respect of commercial use, the rates are increased 25 times, any material to demonstrate that the revision of the rates is discriminatory or arbitrary or even without application of mind or that the rates have been determined without taking into account relevant factors, is not made out and not established by the petitioner. 12.4 On examination of the notification, it comes out that the respondent State has rationalized the provisional rates after having found that the merger of different areas are expedient in view of the developments in the area over a period of time and that, therefore, the respondent State undertook exercise of merging various areas having regard to the subsequent development and thereafter the authority determined the rates. 12.5 The rates determined by the State in exercise of powers conferred by the Act, the respondent State has not exceeded its authority. 12.6 The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the exercise of power by the respondent State and/or the rates determined by the respondent State have exceeded the scope permissible under the Act. 12.7 It is also not possible to hold and there is no material on record to establish that the rates determined by the State are discriminatory in any manner. 12.8 In this view of the mater, the decision by this Court in case of Gujarat Blacktrap Quarry Industries Association vs. State of Gujarat [ 2005 (1) GLH 521 ] does not assist the case of the petitioner. 12.9 Actually the petitioner has failed to make out any ground to demonstrate that its case would be covered by either by the facts involved in the cited decision or within the purview of the limited scope of judicial scrutiny by the Court. 13. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate and establish that the respondent State exceeded the scope of the authority. 14. Another reason in light of which the petition does not deserve to be entertained, is the fact which has emerged from the affidavit filed by the respondent panchayat. 13. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate and establish that the respondent State exceeded the scope of the authority. 14. Another reason in light of which the petition does not deserve to be entertained, is the fact which has emerged from the affidavit filed by the respondent panchayat. 14.1 From the notice it has emerged that the petitioner had not made payment from 2004 onwards and despite the fact that the notice issued by the petitioner's advocate was duly replied by the authority, the petitioner failed to pay the amount and without making the payment, the petitioner filed this petition. 14.2 The petitioner has, undisputedly, not paid the assessment amount since 2004 and consciously caused default. A petition by such petitioner against a notification issued before 3 years does not deserve to be entertained, more particularly because by now almost 13 years have passed. 15. Besides this, the petition against the notice dated 12.3.2005 does not deserve to be entertained also because of the fact that the petitioner filed the petition almost two years after the notice came to be issued in March 2005. A petition filed after such delay and that too at Notice stage, i.e. against notice calling the petitioner to make the payment does not deserve to be entertained. 16. In light of foregoing reasons and for reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and does not deserve to be accepted. Any ground to interfere with and to set aside the notification is not made out. Therefore, the petition deserves to be rejected and it is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged. Petition Dismissed