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. 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 agriculturist, the application of the petitioners’ for non-agricultural permission ought not to have been rejected, as such a consideration on the part of the concerned authorities is totally, irrelevant. In support of his submissions, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vyas, placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Savitaben Harendrakumar Patel Vs. State of Gujarat And Others’, Dated: 20.03.2024, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 11295 of 2023, wherein, in similar set of facts, this Court has held that it is irrelevant to consider the status of the predecessor of the predecessor-in-title that whether, he was an agriculturists or not. Therefore, by relying upon the aforesaid decision, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. State of Gujarat And Others’, Dated: 20.03.2024, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 11295 of 2023, wherein, in similar set of facts, this Court has held that it is irrelevant to consider the status of the predecessor of the predecessor-in-title that whether, he was an agriculturists or not. Therefore, by relying upon the aforesaid decision, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vyas, prayed that this petition may be allowed and the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned AGP, Ms. Pathak, appearing for the Respondent- State vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that the orders passed by the Collector and the Revisional Authority are self-explanatory, which are well-reasoned and therefore, the competent authorities have rightly come to the conclusion that, as the predecessor of the predecessor-in-title of the land in question, namely Talshibhai Ranchhodbhai, was not an agriculturists, the petitioners’ application for non-agricultural permission is rightly rejected. 7. However, on a specific query raised by this Court, as to whether, any proceedings were initiated against the predecessor of the predecessor-in-title of the land in question, namely Talsibhai Ranchhodbhai, for he not being an agriculturists, learned AGP, Ms. Pathak, submitted that the record does not indicate that any proceedings were initiate or are pending against the predecessor of the predecessor-in-title of the land in question, Talsibhai Ranchhodbhai. 8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the material on record, it appears that the present petitioners purchased the land in question in the year 2019, by way of a registered sale deed, from its predecessor-in-title, namely Ghanshyambhai, who had purchased the same form its earlier owner or predecessor-in-title, namely Talsibhai Ranchhodbhai, in the year 2017. Meaning thereby, Talsibhai Ranchhodbhai had ceased to be the owner of the land in question in the year 2017, itself. Thereafter, the present petitioners purchased the land in question from said Ghanshyambhai in the year 2019. Thus, considering the above aspects as well as considering the fact that the impugned orders passed by the competent authorities do not indicate that any proceedings were initiated against the predecessor of the predecessor-in-title of the land in question, namely Talshibhai Ranchhodbhai, there does not appear to be any logic or nexus between aspect of the predecessor of the predecessor-in-title of the land in question not being an agriculturists. The status of the predecessor of the predecessor-intitle of the land in question, namely Talsibhai Ranchhodbhai, was an agriculturists or not cannot be said to be a relevant consideration for the purpose of deciding the application of the present petitioners’, who are the agriculturists by birth and already owns several agricultural lands, for getting non-agricultural permission qua the land in question. 9. In the case of ‘Savitaben Harendrakumar Patel’ (Supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed and held at Paragraphs- 7 to 10, thereof, as under; “7. Further, though reply is not filed in this petition, even though the Instructing Officer is present in the Court to assist the learned AGP, no justification is coming forward for this extraneous consideration as to how it is relevant for considering an application of a person seeking N.A. permission to consider the status of his predecessor-in-title as to whether he was an agriculturist or not, more particularly, when no proceedings were initiated against him during the time during which he is holding the land or no proceedings have been contemplated or no proceedings are pending against such a person who was predecessor-in-title of the predecessor of the petitioner and, therefore, I have no hesitation in accepting the contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Desai that the consideration on which the petitioner's application was denied was absolutely baseless, irrelevant and extraneous. Further, this Court in similar set of facts in the case of Ukani Jaykumar Kantilal and others v. State of Gujarat and another, Special Civil Application No.16329 of 2023 (Supra) in paragraphs 7 and 8 has considered similar submission and while allowing the petition, the impugned order passed by the Collector in that petition was quashed. 8. Further, when the entire revenue record is available and now with the advancement of technology, the record is available to the office of the Collector just with a click of mouse, the Collector ought not to have denied the N.A. permission to the petitioner on the ground that status of the predecessor-in-title of the predecessor of the petitioner i.e. Rana Sandipkumar Ishwarlal could not be verified. Such N.A. permission application remained pending before the Collector right from date of application i.e. 23.2.2023 till 13.4.2023 i.e. almost for a period of 50 days to verify status of a person as an agriculturist is not a herculean task which may require months when the entire record is available with the office of the District Collector. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 13.4.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 - Resident Additional Collector, Mahisagar is required to be quashed and set aside and the same is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3 - Resident Additional Collector for considering the application of the petitioner seeking N.A. permission afresh ignoring the aspect of whether predecessor-in-title of the predecessor of the petitioner was an agriculturist or not as till date, as no proceedings about the predecessor-in-title of the predecessor of the petitioner whether he was an agriculturist or not are initiated, as stated by learned advocate Mr. Desai for the petitioner. 10. With the above observation and direction, present petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.” 10. The observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as recorded herein above, would indicate that this Court has, in the past, taken a view that whether, the predecessor of the predecessor-in-title or the predecessor-in-title of the land question was an agriculturists or not is not a relevant consideration to determine the application of the petitioners. However, in the present case, from the record it appears that no proceedings were initiated against the predecessor of predecessor-in-title, namely Talsibhai, for he not being an agriculturists. Under the circumstances, the competent authorities were not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners for grant of non- agricultural permission. Hence, the imugned orders passed by the competent authorities deserve to be rejected and the matter requires to be remanded. 11. Resultantly, this petition is ALLOWED and the impugned orders dated 29.04.2022, passed by the Special Secretary (Dispute), Ahmedabad, in Revision Application No. MVV/BKP/BTD/3/2020 as well as the order dated 03.04.2020, passed by the Collector, Botad, are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Collector, Botad, for taking a fresh decision in the matter, in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.