ORDER : 1. Rule. Ms.Dhwani Tripathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent authorities. With consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up finally. 2. By way of the present petition under Articles-14, 19(1)(g), 300A as well as under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed as under : “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 28.07.2014 passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Application No.2/2013 and order dated 12.09.2012 passed by respondent No.4in Case No.1/2012 at Annexure “A” and “B” respectively; (B) Pending the hearing and till final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the order dated 28.07.2014 passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Application No.2/2013 and order dated 12.09.2012 passed by respondent No.4 in Case No.1/2012 at Annexure “A” and “B” respectively; (C) Exparte ad-interim relief in terms of Prayer-B above may kindly be granted; (D) Pass such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice. (E) Pass an order of costs against respondents.” 3. Upon issuance of notice, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared in the matter and has assisted the Court at the time of hearing. 4. The facts arise from the record are as under. 4.1 That the petitioner company was interested in carrying out industrial activities in the State of Gujarat and therefore purchased several parcels of agricultural land for bonafide industrial purpose of Village Rampura-2, Taluka Rajula, District Amreli. Since the lands are situated in Saurashtra region of State of Gujarat, the provisions of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance”), are applicable and binding to the parties dealing with these lands. The Deputy Collector by his Certificate dated 10.09.1999 permitted the petitioner company to purchase the agricultural land under Section-55 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance on certain terms and conditions. 4.2 The petitioner was supposed to comply with the conditions and carry out industrial activities upon the land which was purchased by it within a period of three years. The Deputy Collector by his Certificate dated 10.09.1999 permitted the petitioner company to purchase the agricultural land under Section-55 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance on certain terms and conditions. 4.2 The petitioner was supposed to comply with the conditions and carry out industrial activities upon the land which was purchased by it within a period of three years. However, since the industrial activities could not be begun, the petitioner requested the authority in the year 2003 for extension of time, which was granted by the Deputy Collector on 18.09.2003. 4.3 The petitioner could not carry out any industrial activity within the reasonable time and therefore again made a request in the year 2012. However, the Collector issued notice for breach of conditions and to show cause why the land should not be confiscated. The petitioner appeared before the authority, however, the order was passed against the petitioner which was challenged by the present petitioner by way of filing Revision Application No.2 of 2013. The revisional authority by order dated 31.07.2013 dismissed the revision application on the ground that appropriate application within prescribed limitation was not submitted by the applicant. Hence, this petition. 5. Mr.Vimal Patel, learned advocate for Mr.Hitesh Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner got his layout plans sanctioned with regard to the warehouse from the competent authority and therefore a request was made in the year 2012, however, the same was not considered. He would submit that a detailed representation was made to the State authorities on 20.10.2014, which is pending. He would further submit that the petitioner would like to request that the Deputy Collector be directed to reconsider his case in view of amendment in the provisions of Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance which is incorporated in Gujarat Act No.28 of 2015. By taking me through the amended provisions of Section-55 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, the learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the State authority has thought it fit to consider the case if the activities are not carried out within the prescribed limitation and Collector would have authority to deal with such application subject to proviso made in the amended provision. He therefore would submit that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation within a period of three weeks hereafter requesting the concerned District Collector to decide the representation in accordance with law. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Dhwani Tripathi has opposed the petition. However, she would submit that if the Court directs to reconsider the case, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 7. The amended provision of Section-55 of Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, reads as under : “6. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Dhwani Tripathi has opposed the petition. However, she would submit that if the Court directs to reconsider the case, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 7. The amended provision of Section-55 of Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, reads as under : “6. In the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, in section 55 (1) in subsection (3), after the existing proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely : “Provided further that where the land is sold to a purchaser which is a company as defined by clause (20) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013, it may offer the equity shares of the company, to the person by whom such land is being sold, in lieu of the sale price of such land and if such person is an agreement for accepting such equity shares, either in full or partly, then it shall be incumbent upon such company to allot such equity shares of equivalent amount, either in full or partly, to such person.” (2) in subsection (20, for clause (b) and proviso thereto, the following clause shall be substituted, namely : “(b) the purchaser to whom a certificate is issued under sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of subsection (3) shall commence production of goods or providing of services within five years from such date of certificate: Provided that the period of five years may, on an application made by the purchaser in that behalf be extended by two years by the Collector as it may by an order in writing in such circumstances as may be prescribed : Provided further that the Collector shall not extend such period for more than a period of one year at a time : Provided also that such aggregate period of seven years may, on an application made by the purchaser in that behalf, and on the payment of fifty per cent, of the prevailing Jantri value, be extended by another three years by the State Government”; (3) after subsection (3), the following subsections shall be inserted, namely : “(3A) In case where the purchaser fails to commence the production of goods or providing of services within three years from the date of certificate issued under sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of subsection (2)or thereafter, the Collector may, after an application is made to him in that behalf grant permission by an order for sale or transfer of such land : Provided that such permission shall be granted by the Collector only upon the payment of (i) 40 per cent of the prevailing Jantri value, if the application is made before the completion of a period of five years from the date of certificate; (ii) 60 per cent of the prevailing Jantri value, if the application is made after a period of five years but before the completion of a period of seven years from the date of certificate; (iii) 100 per cent of the prevailing Jantri value, if the application is made thereafter.” 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. It appears that the land was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1999. The layout plans were also sanctioned in the year 2010. The petitioner is still interested in carrying out industrial activities upon the land which was purchased by the petitioner and since they are ready to abide by the terms and conditions which are referred in the amended clause, I am of the opinion that the petition requires consideration. 9. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.07.2014 passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Application No.2 of 2013 and order dated 12.09.2012 passed by respondent No.4 in Case No.1 of 2012 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall make a fresh representation within a period of three weeks hereinafter and the concerned District Collector shall consider the same in accordance with law, including the amended provisions of Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 10. Direct service is permitted.