Testamentary dispositions for agricultural land transfers are prohibited without governmental sanction under specific tenancy legislation.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. By the present Special Civil Applications, the petitioner challenges the orders passed by the revenue authorities, whereby the mutation entries in favour of the petitioner have been revised and deleted in view of the fact that the lands in question have been transferred to the petitioner on the basis of the Registered Will in respect of the subject lands in question.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 43 (1) or Section 63 (1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 does not envisage the Will to be the document of transfer and therefore, the revenue authorities have erred in deleting the mutation entries in favour of the petitioner. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pravinbhai B Gor. vs. Rajivkumar Gupta reported in 1999(1) GCD 101.

4. The learned AGP appearing for the respondent State authorities submits that the issue in respect of transfer by Will has now been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia vs. State of Gujarat and ors. reported in (2020) 18 SCC 144. He, therefore, submits that the present case is squarely covered by the said decision and no interference is called for.

5. Despite service of rule, none appears for the respondent Nos.3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,4.

6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record.

7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case Rajenbhai Baldevbhai Shah vs. Baijiben Kabhaibhai Patanvadia and ors. reported in 2009(2) GLR 1784, has held thus :-

“11. The expression `transfer' was interpreted by the Apex Court in the context of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Apex Court in State of Punjab (Now Haryana) and others v. Amar Singh and another (AIR 1974 SC 994) held the expression `transfer' is wide enough to cover transfer by operation of law unless expressly excluded. Special exclusions to save transfer by way of inheritance and compulsory land acquisition by State have been made which would have been supererogatory had involuntary transfers automatically gone out of the pale of Section 10-A(b). Apex Court held that the triple objects of the agrarian reform projected by the Act appear to be (a) to impart security to tenure (b) to make the tiller the owner and (c) to trim large land holdings, setting sober ceiling. The Apex Court held that basic judicial approach must be to discover this soul of the law and strive to harmonize the many limbs to subserve the pervasive spirit and advance the social project of the enactment. The Apex Court in Dayandeo Ganapat Jadhav v. Madhav Vitthal Bhaskar and others [(2005) 8 SCC 340] while interpreting the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 held that the Act has been enacted with a view to protect the tenants and the provisions of the Act, therefore, must be construed in favour of a weaker class of society to ensure that the object underlying the Act is fulfilled. The Act has been described as a beneficial legislation to protect the tenants as well as the agriculturists and parties cannot be allowed to defeat the object and purpose of the Act by executing testamentary disposition.

12. We are, therefore, of the considered view that if the agriculturist is permitted to dispose agricultural property through testamentary disposition to a non-agriculturist the same will defeat the very purpose and object of the Tenancy Act which cannot be permitted by a Court of law, therefore, we hold that decision rendered by the learned Single Judges referred above earlier, otherwise, are not correct enun