See also Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Walden, 277 So.2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). The fact that other lands owned by Estech in the same area were used for mining does not mean that the lands involved in this litigation were so used. See Daniel v. American Cyanamid Co., 480 So.2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). On cross-appeal, Estech contends that the trial court erred in upholding the appraiser's valuation of other, mined-out lands at $700 per acre. Estech contends that in arriving at that valuation the appraiser disregarded the requirements of section 193.011, Florida Statutes (1983), because he failed to consider the location of the lands, failed to consider that the lands had no use on tax day, failed to consider the cost of reclamation of mined-out lands which is required by section 211.32, Florida Statutes (1983), failed to use proper comparable sales in arriving at market value, and failed to apply the appraiser's own valuation figure for properties having a use similar to the use which the appraiser determined these lands had. Estech's position is that, as shown by its own appraisal evidence described below, the lands involved in the cross-appeal had a negative or, at best, nominal value.
Here, the lessee's use of the 1,840 acres for grazing cattle clearly qualified this land for an agricultural classification. See also Daniel v. American Cyanamid Co., 480 So.2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Fisher v. Schooley, 371 So.2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Moreover, Ridgewood's intention to use the leased land for mining and its preparatory activities for that future use were insufficient to deny agricultural classification.
We disagree. See Daniel v. American Cyanamid Co., 480 So.2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Our basic reasoning for this reversal is the same as that used by the Florida Supreme Court in Straughn v. Tuck, 354 So.2d 368, 371 (Fla. 1977), to wit: