Non-agricultural permission alone does not change land character; actual non-agricultural use is required to lift tenancy restrictions.

Permission for non-agricultural use under the Land Revenue Code is only an enabling order and does not by itself change agricultural land into non-agricultural land. The legal character changes only when the land is actually put to non-agricultural use and the necessary intimation and revenue formalities are completed; absent such commencement, tenancy restrictions on transfer to a non-agriculturist continue to apply. A certified copy of the permission order was allowed on record as additional evidence in the second appeal, but no remand or further evidentiary reopening was permitted because it did not alter the substantive position.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the grant of permission for non-agricultural use under the Land Revenue Code by itself changed the character of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural so as to remove the bar under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act; (ii) whether the certified copy of the non-agricultural permission order could be taken on record and relied upon in second appeal as additional evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the grant of permission for non-agricultural use under the Land Revenue Code by itself changed the character of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural so as to remove the bar under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

Analysis: Permission for non-agricultural use was only an enabling order and did not, by itself, alter the legal character of the land. The change in character occurred only when the land was actually put to non-agricultural use and the required intimation and consequential revenue steps were complied with. On the record, no such commencement of non-agricultural use was shown, and the assessment and revenue position remained unchanged. The land therefore continued to be agricultural land, with the result that the restrictions on transfer to a non-agriculturist remained operative.

Conclusion: The land did not cease to be agricultural merely upon grant of non-agricultural permission, and the sale in favour of the appellant was not valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the certified copy of the non-agricultural permission order could be taken on record and relied upon in second appeal as additional evidence.

Analysis: The document was central to the appellants' case, and there were references to it in the record. In the special circumstances of the matter, the Court permitted the certified copy to be taken on record, but declined to remand the case or permit further evidence at the stage of second appeal. The additional document did not alter the substantive conclusion because the legal effect of the permission still depended on actual commencement of non-agricultural use.

Conclusion: The certified copy was taken on record, but no remand or further evidentiary reopening was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed because the land retained its agricultural character and the appellant could not derive a valid title under the sale deed. The ancillary application for additional evidence was partly accepted only to the extent of taking the certified copy on record.

Ratio Decidendi: A permission to use agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes does not by itself change the legal character of the land; the change occurs only upon actual commencement of non-agricultural use and compliance with the attendant statutory requirements.

---