JUDGMENT : Nirzar S. Desai, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.6.2023 as well as order dated 21.7.2023 whereby the petitioner's application seeking permission for converting the land into industrial purpose under Section 65B was rejected. 2. By consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Krushita Dave waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Aadit R. Sanjanwala appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Krushita Dave appearing for the respondent-State. 4. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- "(a) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside communications dated 29.06.2023 (Annexure-A) and 21.07.2023 (Annexure-B) and further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction mandating the Collector, Bharuch to expeditiously reconsider and grant the Certificate under Section 65B to the Petitioner; (b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders directing the Collector, Bharuch to expeditiously reconsider and grant the Certificate under Section 65B to the Petitioner; (c) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) above; (d) For costs; (e) For such other and further reliefs that the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice." 5. The brief facts giving rise to the petition as stated in the petition are as under :- 5.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the dispute is in respect of land bearing Block No. 188 (Old Survey No. 1004) of Village Dahej, Taluka Vagra, District Bharuch. The petitioner is the present owner of the land in question and he has purchased the above land by way of a registered sale deed dated 6.10.2021. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing agrochemicals and other allied segments and having its registered office at Chennai and manufacturing plant is in Dahej, Gujarat. The manufacturing plant of the petitioner company is situated on land bearing Survey Nos. 979, 980, 981, 982, 990, 995, 996 and 1002 of Village Dahej, District Bharuch. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing agrochemicals and other allied segments and having its registered office at Chennai and manufacturing plant is in Dahej, Gujarat. The manufacturing plant of the petitioner company is situated on land bearing Survey Nos. 979, 980, 981, 982, 990, 995, 996 and 1002 of Village Dahej, District Bharuch. The land in question having old survey No. 1004 is the land which is immediately adjoining the land of the aforesaid land on which the petitioner's manufacturing plant was originally established. 5.2 As the petitioner was intending to expand its manufacturing unit, he purchased the land bearing survey Nos. 1003 and 1004 by way of a registered sale deed dated 6.10.2021 and as the land was purchased with a view to utilize it for bonafide industrial purpose, according to the petitioner, no prior agricultural use permission was required under Section 65. According to the petitioner, though the petitioner is entitled to commence the use of bonafide industrial purpose and obtained certificate under Section 65(B) and more particularly, under Section 65B(1)(b)(ii), if the occupant of the land utilizes or used or held the land for the agricultural purpose such use of land shall be lawful for him to use such land for bonafide industrial purpose without permission of the Collector subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 5.3 According to the petitioner, as per Section 65B(2)(b) when an occupant commences the use of the land for a bonafide industrial purpose, he shall, within 30 days from the date of commencement of use, send a notice of date of commencements along with other particulars to the Collector, who is empowered to make an inquiry under Sub-section 3 of the Section 65B and then if the Collector is satisfied about the use of land then he shall issue a certificate to that effect. 5.4 Accordingly, the petitioner applied before the Collector, Bharuch to obtain the Certificate under Section 65B. The petitioner's application under Section 65B seeking permission for converting the land into non agricultural land for bonafide industrial purpose was rejected by the Collector, Bharuch vide communication dated 29.6.2023 on the ground that petitioner's predecessor in title viz. Mohammad Rafiq Abubakar Memon could not be verified as an agriculturist. The petitioner's application under Section 65B seeking permission for converting the land into non agricultural land for bonafide industrial purpose was rejected by the Collector, Bharuch vide communication dated 29.6.2023 on the ground that petitioner's predecessor in title viz. Mohammad Rafiq Abubakar Memon could not be verified as an agriculturist. The petitioner once again applied for such permission and once again petitioner's application was rejected on the same ground vide order dated 27.7.2023 and therefore, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Krushita Dave appearing for the respondent-State. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an industrialist having manufacturing unit and his application was specifically for seeking N.A. permission for bonafide industrial purpose. 7.1. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Sanjanwala that the predecessor in title of the petitioner viz. Mohammad Rafiq Abubakar Memon was an agriculturist, when the petitioner purchased the land on 6.10.2021. There was a valid certificate of agriculturist issued in favour of the aforesaid Mohammad Rafiq Abubakar Memon, the predecessor in title of the land in question by the Prant Officer, Bharuch Prant, District Bharuch and therefore, as the agricultural land was belonged to a person, who was having a certificate of an agriculturist, the land was purchased by the petitioner. 7.2. Learned advocate Mr. Sanjanwala submitted that though the aforesaid certificate dated 3.11.2020 issued in favour of Mohammad Rafiq Abubakar Memon by the competent officer i.e. Prant Officer, Bharuch Prant, District Bharuch, is still valid and the same is still not cancelled and despite knowing fully well that the certificate is issued by none other than the Prant Officer, Bharuch Prant, District Bharuch, ignoring the aforesaid aspect that the petitioner's application was rejected by the respondents only on the ground that they could not verify about the fact that whether the predecessor in title viz. Mohammad Rafiq Abubakar Memon is an agriculturist or not. 7.3. Learned advocate Mr. Mohammad Rafiq Abubakar Memon is an agriculturist or not. 7.3. Learned advocate Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala further submitted that not only the aforesaid fact was completely ignored and the petitioner's repeated applications seeking permission to utilize the land for industrial purpose was dismissed, the authority has as per the knowledge of the petitioner, till date not initiated any action against the predecessor in title of the petitioner and even if, such actions are initiated after the petitioner purchased the land in question, the said action would not have any impact over the land, which the petitioner has purchased even before initiation of such actions. 7.4. Learned advocate Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala further submitted that even otherwise the question about whether the petitioner's predecessor in title was an agriculturist or not is absolutely an irrelevant consideration for the reason that till date the aforesaid certificate issued in favor of the predecessor of the petitioner on 3.11.2020 has not been cancelled and the entry in favour of the petitioner in respect of sale of land has already been mutated by the Revenue Authorities. The said entry has not even taken into suo-motu revision till date and therefore, in absence of there being any proceedings against the petitioner or against the predecessor in title of the petitioner till the date on which the impugned orders were passed, the impugned order is passed without any basis and the ground on which the petitioner's application is rejected is absolutely irrelevant and therefore, the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Collector, Bharuch to consider the petitioner's application afresh. 7.5. Learned advocate Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala further drew attention of this Court by making submission that the very authority i.e. Collector, Bharuch vide order dated 7.4.2023 granted permission to the petitioner to start bonafide industrial use of the land in question under Section 63AA of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. Learned advocate Mr. 7.5. Learned advocate Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala further drew attention of this Court by making submission that the very authority i.e. Collector, Bharuch vide order dated 7.4.2023 granted permission to the petitioner to start bonafide industrial use of the land in question under Section 63AA of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. Learned advocate Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala therefore submitted that the petitioner's first application was rejected by order dated 26.6.2023, before that such permission was granted in the month of April-2023 and thereafter, immediately after grant of permission under Section 65AA, within a period of two months, by two consecutive orders, the authority has passed a completely contradictory order rejecting the petitioner's applications under Section 65B on the ground that the status of the petitioner's predecessor could not be verified as an agriculturist and therefore, considering the aforesaid contradiction, at the end of respondent authority, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Collector, Bharuch for afresh consideration of petitioner's application under Section 65B of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Krushita Dave appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner's predecessor viz. Mohammad Rafiq Abubakar Memon though was issued a certificate on 3.11.2020 to the effect that he is an agriculturist but subsequently on account of some complaint received by the authorities, the inquiry is under contemplation, in respect of status of Mohammad Rafiq Abubakar Memon and the matter is pending before the Assistant Collector Vigilance Department. However, despite vehemently opposing the petition, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Krushita Dave could not dispute the fact that the certificate issued in favour of predecessor in title of the petitioner to the effect that he is an agriculturist issued on 3.11.2020 is still valid and still the said certificate is neither suspended nor cancelled. 8.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Krushita Dave however submitted that the status of the predecessor in title of the petitioner as an agriculturist is questionable and therefore, some inquiry is contemplated by the Vigilance Department against the same. However, till date the certificate is neither suspended nor cancelled. 8.2. Except for the aforesaid submissions, no other submissions were made by learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Dave. 9. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the record. However, till date the certificate is neither suspended nor cancelled. 8.2. Except for the aforesaid submissions, no other submissions were made by learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Dave. 9. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of record, I found that the petitioner has after purchasing the land in the month of October-2021 applied for a permission under Section 63AA of the Tenancy Act. The aforesaid permission was granted by the very Collector, Bharuch for using the land for bonafide industrial use vide order dated 7.4.2023. Thereafter, when the petitioner made an application under Section 65B to the Collector, the Collector has rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner's predecessor in title is an agriculturist or not that fact could not be verified and therefore, the petitioner's application is rejected. There is no other ground mentioned in either of the order dated 29.6.2023 or in the order dated 21.7.2023. This is the sole ground on which the petitioner's application seeking permission under Section 65B is rejected and therefore, the aforesaid issue is required to be considered only by considering the fact that whether the petitioner's predecessor in title was an agriculturist or not and secondly, whether the aforesaid consideration can be said to be a relevant consideration for grant of permission under Section 65B. 9.1. As far as the first aspect is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala in his petition has produced the certificate issued in favour of his predecessor in title viz. Mohammad Rafiq Abubakar Memon issued by Prant Officer, Bharuch Prant, District Bharuch on 3.11.2020. As can been seen from the foregoing paragraph, the aforesaid certificate is still valid according to learned advocate Mr.Aadit Sanjanwala and the aforesaid aspect could not be disputed by learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Krushita Dave. Though the proceedings are contemplated against the aforesaid Mohammad Rafiq Abubakar Memon, the predecessor in title of the petitioner, the aforesaid certificate issued on 3.11.2020 was not even suspended also by the authority and therefore, at the time when the petitioner purchased the land in question on 6.10.2021, the aforesaid certificate was valid and therefore, upon that certificate the petitioner had purchased the land in question. Even the date on which the petitioner applied for N.A. permission under Section 65B, the aforesaid certificate was valid. Even the date on which the petitioner applied for N.A. permission under Section 65B, the aforesaid certificate was valid. The date on which the petitioner's application seeking permission under Section 65B was rejected i.e. on 29.6.2023 and 21.7.2023, the aforesaid certificate was valid. So during all the time, during which the petitioner purchased the land in question as well as applied for permission for bonafide industrial use, the aforesaid certificate certifying the predecessor in title of the petitioner as an agriculturist was valid. Despite that the Authority has for some extraneous reasons rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the authority could not verify the status of the predecessor in title of the petitioner. According to me, the authority was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application on this ground, as the Deputy Collector of the very district i.e. Prant Officer, Bharuch had issued certificate of an agriculturist to the predecessor in title of the petitioner on 3.11.2020 and the same was valid and therefore, the respondent authorities were not required to carry out an extensive inquiry about the petitioner's predecessor status as an agriculturist. Had the authority raised a query, the aforesaid certificate could have been immediately produced before the authority by the petitioner or by his predecessor. 9.2. Further, I fail to understand that when the petitioner's predecessor has already parted with the land and has sold away the land in favour of the petitioner on 6.10.2021 by way of a registered sale deed and during the time when he was holding the agricultural land, his status as an agriculturist was not questioned by the authority. Only after the predecessor in title has parted with the land by way of a registered sale deed, the authorities started questioning the status of the predecessor in title as an agriculturist. Even if, the petitioner's predecessor is held to be non-agriculturist after due inquiry which is contemplated now than also the same would not cover the transaction which has taken place during the time during which he was holding a certificate as an agriculturist and in case if a person has entered into transaction with a bonafide belief that his predecessor is an agriculturist. 9.3. 9.3. In view of that according to me once the proceedings were not initiated during the period during which the person was holding agricultural land on account of certificate to the effect that he is an agriculturist was issued in his favour and once he has parted with the aforesaid land whether the predecessor in title of the land in question was an agriculturist or not, would not be a relevant consideration for grant of N.A. permission. Further, in the instant case, even the certificate issued in favour of the predecessor in title certifying him as an agriculturist is still valid. 9.4. Hence, in view of that both the impugned orders passed by the Collector, Bharuch dated 29.6.2023 and order dated 21.7.2023 are erroneous and are accordingly, required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, both the orders passed by the Collector, Bharuch dated 29.6.2023 as well as order dated 21.7.2023 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Collector, Bharuch. The Collector, Bharuch is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for grant of permission under Section 65B afresh in accordance with law within the time framed as prescribed under the Act. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.