IMPORTANT POINT
The status of the predecessor-in-title as an agriculturist is not a relevant consideration for determining the application of the petitioners for non-agricultural permission.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Learned AGP waives service for the Respondents.

1. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, this matter is taken-up for final hearing and being disposed of by this judgment and order.

1.1 By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.04.2022, passed by the Special Secretary (Dispute), Ahmedabad (in brief, ‘Revisional Authority’), in Revision Application No. MVV/BKP/BTD/3/2020 as well as the order dated 03.04.2020, passed by the Collector, Botad, and has further prayed to direct the Respondent-authorities to grant non-agricultural permission qua the land in question to the petitioners.

2. Heard, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dhaval Vyas, for the petitioner and learned AGP, Ms. Shruti Pathak.

3. The brief facts of the case are that both the petitioners, herein, are agriculturists by birth and they have inherited agricultural lands from their ancestors and the entries are also made to that effect in the Revenue Record being Entry Nos. 1, 491, 581, 684, 1227, 1287 and Entry Nos. 68, 680 and 903.

4. The land in question, i.e. the land bearing Survey No. 280/Paiki 1, admeasuring 24,372 sq.mts., situated at Village: Shiyannagar, Taluka: Gadhda, District: Botad (‘land in question’, herein after), which originally belonged to one Jorsangbhai Santhabhai was purchased by one Talsibhai Ranchhodbhai Anghan vide registered sale deed dated 01.12.2003 and for that the Revenue Entry No. 860 came to be mutated in the record. It appears that Talsibhai Ranchhodbhai sold the land in question to one Ghanshyambhai Mohanbhai Anghan on 24.04.2017 and thereafter, out of the aforesaid land admeasuring 24372 sq.mts., Ghanshayambhai sold a portion, thereof, admeasuring 17361 sq.mts. to the present petitioners vide registered sale deed bearing No. 1318 /2019 on 27.12.2019 and for which Revenue Entry No. 1898 was made and the same was certified on 12.03.2020. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for conversion of the land in question for agricultural land to non-agricultural land, as provided under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (in brief, ‘the Code’), by way of application dated 12.03.2020. However, the Collector, Botad, rejected the aforesaid application vide order dated 03.04.2020. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners preferred Revision Application No. MVV/BKP/BTD/3/2020 before the Revisional Authority, which also rejected the same vide impugned order dated 29.04.2022. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

5. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dhaval Vyas, appearing with learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the only ground on which the petitioners’ application for grant of non-agricultural permission was rejected is that, once upon a time, the predecessor of the predecessor-in-title of the land in question, namely Talsibhai Ranchhodbhai, was not an agriculturists. It was, further, submitted that said Talsibhai Ranchhodbhai had, then, sold the land in question to one Ghanshyambhai in the year 2017 and thereafter, said Ghanshyambhai sold a portion of the land in question to the present petitioners in the year 2019. It was submitted that when the present petitioners are agriculturists and when, there were no proceedings initiated against the predecessor of the predecessor-in-title of the land in question, namely Talsibhai Rachhodbhai, nor any such proceedings are pending, the petitioners’ application could not have been rejected. It was, further, submitted that, in fact, the material on record indicates that there were no proceedings ever initiated against the predecessor of the predecessor-in-title of the land in question for not being an agriculturists and therefore, in absence of there being any proceedings initiated or pending against the predecessor of the predecessor-in-title of the land in question, merely on the ground that the predecessor of the predecessor-in-title of the land in question, at the relevant point of time, was not an agricult