JUDGMENT : A.N. Diveeha, J. The order passed by and on behalf of the respondent on 14th June 1993 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By its impugned order, the respondent rejected the petitioners application for exemption under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976(the Act' for brief) inter alia with respect to the lands bearing survey Nos. 106/2 and 110 situated in village Jambuva, taluka and district Vadodara (the disputed lands for convenience). 2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner possessed several parcels of land in village Maneja, Jambuva, and Mujar Gamdi within the urban agglomeration of Vadodara. He applied for exemption under Section 20(1) of the Act with respect to all his lands including the disputed lands. The ground given for claiming exemption was that the lands in question including the disputed lands were used for agricultural purposes. After giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by the order passed by and on behalf of the respondent on 14th June 1993, the petitioners application came to be rejected qua the disputed lands. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning its correctness. 3. It transpires from the impugned order at Annexure B to this petition that the application for exemption has been rejected mainly on the grounds that grass was grown on the disputed lands during agricultural years 1982-83 to the 1984-85 and that the lands were not situated in the agricultural zone. The land ground cannot be sustained in law for the simple reason that, if the lands were situated in the agricultural zone and agricultural operations were carried on therein at the time of coming into force of the Act, they would be excluded from the applicability of the Act in view of the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begum v. State of UP & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2465 . 4. So far as the first ground is concerned, the petitioner has produced relevant revenue records in Forms 7 and 12 at Annexure b to this petition with respect to the disputed lands. 4. So far as the first ground is concerned, the petitioner has produced relevant revenue records in Forms 7 and 12 at Annexure b to this petition with respect to the disputed lands. These forms clearly go to show that except for the period of three years from 1982-83 to 1984-85, the disputed lands have been used for growing different type of crops like cotton juwar, and tuner. It is unfortunate that the author of the impugned order at Annexure A to this petition did not choose to refer to the entire record and picked up only three years therefrom for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has been growing grass therein and growing of such grass does not amount to agricultural activity within the meaning of the Act. There could be thousand and one reasons for allowing the lands to be used for raising grass. It is the case of the petitioner that the lands were used for raising grass in view of shortage of rains at the relevant time. It is equally possible that in order to have better yield, even during good monsoon, agricultural lands are used for raising grass. It would have been desirable on the part of the author of the impugned order at Annexure A to his petition to have ascertained from the petitioner why grass was grown during the aforesaid 3 years. 5. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned order at Annexure A to this petition cannot be sustained in law as it suffers from the vice of non-application of mind on the part of its author. The matter will have therefore to be remanded to the respondent for fresh disposal of the petitioners application for exemption according to law in the light of this judgment of mine. 6. In the result, this application is accepted. The order passed by and on behalf of the respondent on 14th June 1993 at Annexure A to this petition is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent for disposal of the petitioner's application for exemption afresh in the light of this judgment of mine. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.