JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, J. 1. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, we may note the conditions for the purpose for which the land in question was allotted can be discerned from the allotment letter dated 10.7.1961, which is appended at page ‘14’ of the paper book. It is clear from the reading of the said document that the grant of 1,556 sq. yds. of land out of Survey No.62 of Visnagar, District: Mehsana to the purchaser in interest of the petitioner namely, Chandbhai Gafurbhai Nagori was for the purpose of construction of a factory for manufacturing agricultural implements, household articles, etc. and for the purpose of development of small industries. The said grant was subject to payment of occupancy price as indicated therein and the conditions laid down in the Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1947 and 7.8.1956, subject to the additional conditions laid down in the letter of allotment/grant. Clauses (ii) and (iii) of the letter of allotment/grant which clearly state that the grantee shall prepare a proper scheme for the development of the land at their cost and submit a layout plan within six months from the date of taking over possession of the land for the approval of the Collector of Mehsana. It further states that the grantee shall be bound to construct the factories, roads, etc. in accordance with the approved schemes within two years from the date of taking possession of the land. Clause (v) of the letter of allotment/ grant further states that the land and factory plant etc. constructed thereof go together and can be disposed of only together. Clause (vi) says that the lands cannot be subdivided and such sub-divisions cannot be disposed of without the permission of Government; and Clause (vii) says that the Government will be entitled to half the earned increment in the event of sale or transfer, whether out-right or as a result of an unredeemed mortgage, and the land so sold or transferred should be used for a purpose approved by Government if it is to be used for a purpose other than the approved industrial or commercial purposes. 2. It is the case of the petitioner herein that a factory was constructed by the original allottee/ grantee in accordance with the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment/grant and the factory was being run upto the year 1985. 2. It is the case of the petitioner herein that a factory was constructed by the original allottee/ grantee in accordance with the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment/grant and the factory was being run upto the year 1985. However, after 1985 because of the development of the area for residential purposes as well as other commercial purposes, it was not possible for the grantee to run the factory. It seems that the usage of the land has been converted from industrial to commercial purpose and certain shops were constructed and sold out. A request was made by the petitioner by moving an application dated 21.10.1985 seeking permission to construct the shops and sale the same for commercial use of the land. A show cause notice along with recovery for the price of the land at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq. mt. including the penalty had been issued on 20.7.1989 on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of breach of conditions and it was also intimated that the possession would be taken over of all the shops. 3. The petitioner has contested the conversion rate of Rs.700/- per sq. mt. with the assertion that it was too high. The dispute, thus, remains of the premium being charged by the Collector for conversion of the land from industrial to commercial purpose. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question was allotted/granted both for industrial as well as commercial purposes and as such, it was not open for the Collector, Mehsana to realize premium at a high rate on the premise that the conversion of land for commercial purpose was illegal or it was a case of change of use of the land as against the terms and conditions of the grant. 4. Having noted the conditions of the allotment letter hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the original allotment/grant was for a specific purpose, i.e. construction of factory and for the purpose of development of small industries. So far as the words used in Clause (vii) of the letter of allotment/grant, i.e. for commercial purpose, the same pertains to any eventuality which was a future contingency. Clause (vii) is attracted only in case of transfer or sale of land in which eventuality, the Government was entitled to half the earned increment. So far as the words used in Clause (vii) of the letter of allotment/grant, i.e. for commercial purpose, the same pertains to any eventuality which was a future contingency. Clause (vii) is attracted only in case of transfer or sale of land in which eventuality, the Government was entitled to half the earned increment. Moreover, the purpose for which the land so sold or transferred had to be approved by the State Government. It is not so in the instant case. The petitioner while applying for conversion of the land in question for commercial purpose as also for residential purpose, had constructed shops and sold them out without any approval of the State Government about the change of use. It is categorically recorded by the learned Single Judge that the commercial nature of construction put up by the petitioner was without permission and moreover third party rights were created by the petitioner by selling all those constructions without permission of the State Government in utter violation of the conditions of grant. However, on the concession given by the State Government, on the undertaking given by the petitioner that he was ready and willing to make the payment of the valuation of the land which may be determined by the respondents in accordance with law, the Collector, Mehsana vide communication dated 21.7.2014 had conveyed to the Secretary with regard to pending proceedings and the amount which required to be deposited as a premium. Having noted all the above, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that the interest of justice would be served if the cut off date for the purpose of deciding the value of the land is taken on the basis of the decision of the Valuation Committee dated 21.7.2014. It is further recorded that in fact, the valuation of the land in question as per the decision of the Valuation Committee would be exceeded to Rs.50 Lakhs, but since the petitioner was willing to deposit the amount as per the decision of the District Valuation Committee dated 21.7.2014, which was Rs.23,825/-, a direction was given to the petitioner to make his position clear within a period of three weeks with the deposit of the amount, failing which, appropriate steps are permitted to be taken by the respondents in accordance with law. 5. 5. Challenging the above direction passed by the learned Single Judge, it is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the date of determination of premium shall be the date of moving of the application, i.e. 21.10.1985 when the petitioner sought permission to construct shops and sale the same for commercial use or from the date, i.e. 12.7.1991 when the appeal preferred before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, was allowed and the notice issued by the Collector, Mehsana was set aside. 6. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Union of India & Anr. v. Mahajan Industries Ltd. & Anr. [ (2005) 10 SCC 203 ] to submit that the crucial date for calculating the conversion charges has to be the date of receipt of application for conversion of land use. We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to modify the date for calculating the conversion charges to the date of moving of the application on 21.10.1985 for the simple reason that the petitioner had made construction of the shops and created third party rights by selling them without waiting for the decision on his application. The findings returned by the learned Single Judge that the act of the petitioner in changing the nature of the land in question from industrial to commercial use was in violation of conditions of grant, thus, need no interference. As regards the subsequent date, i.e. 11.1.1991 when according to the petitioner, the State Government had sanctioned the proposal for change of use as per the statement made in the affidavit of the respondent No.2 i.e. District Collector, Mehsana, it is more than clear that the show cause notice dated 20.7.1989 had already been issued to the petitioner by then on account of violation of the terms and conditions of the grant as the petitioner had already constructed the commercial centre and sold the constructed shops without any permission of the State Government. Once the proceedings has been initiated for violation of the conditions of the grant, in our considered opinion that subsequent sanction of proposal by the State Government on 11.1.1991 would not be of any benefit to the petitioner, so far as the date for calculating the conversion charges as pressed into service based on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Union of India & Another (supra) is concerned. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is more than evident that the petitioner in utter violation of the terms and conditions of the grant made construction and sold them by creating third party right. Even otherwise, as per Clause (vii) of the letter of allotment/grant as extracted hereinabove, the petitioner was required to pay half the earned increment in the event of sale or transfer of the land in question and the purposes has to be approved by the State Government. We, therefore, do not find any error in the findings returned by the learned Single Judge about the date of computation of premium or conversion charges by deciding the valuation of the land in question as per the decision of the Valuation Committee dated 21.7.2014. Moreover, the said computation was made on the undertaking given by the petitioner that he was ready and willing to make the payment of the valuation of the land which may be determined by the respondents in accordance with law. Such a statement has been recorded in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 in paragraph ‘10’ which could not be successfully assailed before us. 7. For the above noted reasons, we do not find any error in the decision of the learned Single judge. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. 8. Whatever deposits have been made by the petitioner under the interim orders passed by this Court shall duly be adjusted by the respondents while making recovery under the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. The deposits, however, have to be made by the petitioner within a further period of six weeks from today, failing which, it would be open for the respondents to take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with law.