JUDGMENT : J.P. Bajpai, J. 1. The short point on which the decision of this appeal rests is regarding the question of the applicability of the provisions of sections 164 and 165 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959, as they stood unamended prior to the amendment of these sections in 1961, to the disposition by will of a house built upon a plot of land held in Bhumiswami rights and situate within the urban area. 2. At the very outset, it was stated by the parties that the challenge on the point of absolute ownership of Mst. Rajakka by adverse possession of the suit house was already given up before the first appellate Court and was not being challenged before this Court. Similarly, the findings that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and that the will was duly executed and attested were also not under challenge. 3. Thus, the only point on which the claim of the plaintiff for possession of the suit property was disputed was that in accordance with the provisions of the unamended section 165 of the Land Revenue Code, there could be no will in respect of any interest in the land held under Bhumiswami rights and as such, the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim possession of the suit house, because the will being void could not confer any right, title or interest on him in respect of the suit house built upon a plot of land held in Bhumiswami rights. It was also not disputed that the house in question stands on Khasra No. 272/151 held under Bhumiswami rights. 4. The lower appellate Court has held that the prohibition contained in section 165 read with section 164 of the Code was applicable to the present case since the will was executed on 4-2-1960 and also became operative on the same day when the provisions of section 165 of the Code, as they stood unamended on the aforesaid date, prohibited disposition of any interest of a Bhumiswami by a will. 5. The contents of sections 164 and 165(1) of the Land Revenue Code are reproduced below for the purposes of ready reference: 164. Devolution-Subject to his personal law the interest of a Bhumiswami shall, on his death, pass by inheritance, survivorship or bequest, as the case may be. 165. 5. The contents of sections 164 and 165(1) of the Land Revenue Code are reproduced below for the purposes of ready reference: 164. Devolution-Subject to his personal law the interest of a Bhumiswami shall, on his death, pass by inheritance, survivorship or bequest, as the case may be. 165. Rights of transfer-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section and the provisions of section 168 a Bhumiswami may transfer otherwise than by will any interest in his land 6. Shri P.R. Padhye, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant contended that since the plot in question was not agricultural land or open land and situate within the urban area, the provisions of section 165 of the Code were not applicable. According to Shri Padhye, the provisions could apply only to agricultural lands or open lands. I have gone through the provisions of section 165 of the Code and the scheme contemplated by that section. The provisions of M. P. Land Revenue Code are not confined only to agricultural lands. They also deal with non-agricultural lands situate in urban area also. The term 'land' has been defined by section 2(k) of the Land Revenue Code as below: 2(k). "Land" means a portion of the earth's surface whether or not under water; and, where land is referred to in this Code, it shall be deemed to include all things attached to or permanently fastened to anything attached to such land. According to the definition referred above, it is apparent that the term 'Land' does not only refer to open land, but also includes everything permanently fastened to earth and treats the same as a part of the land. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on an unreported decision of this Court in Krishnakumar v. Bairam Das 1969 MPLJ 2 wherein the learned single Judge has observed in the context of the provisions of section 250 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code that even if the term 'Land' is fictionally meant to include even a building standing on the same, it was clearly not the intention of the Code to provide speedy and summary remedy to a Bhumiswami dispossessed of his immovable property in the shape of house. According to the learned single Judge the aforesaid provisions of speedy and summary remedy could be availed by a Bhumiswami in connection with the land of which he was dispossessed. 8. According to the learned single Judge the aforesaid provisions of speedy and summary remedy could be availed by a Bhumiswami in connection with the land of which he was dispossessed. 8. The learned single Judge took the aforesaid view mainly for the reason that when the land is an appurtenance to the building and the dominent purpose of the plaintiff was to get possession of the house and not of the land, section 6 of the Specific Relief Act would be his appropriate remedy and the Tahsildar will not have any jurisdiction to restore possession of such house though standing on a plot of land held in Bhumiswami rights by invoking jurisdiction under section 250 of the Code. Accordingly, it was held that section 257 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, which bars the jurisdiction of civil Courts in certain respects, was not applicable to a suit filed before the Civil Court under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for claiming restoration of possession of a house though standing on a land held in Bhumiswami rights. Thus, according to the learned single Judge, the fictional definition of the land including even building standing thereon, could be applied only according to context in which the said term is used. 9. I have gone through the aforesaid judgment and find that the same was in the context of section 250 of the Code, which was intended to provide a summary remedy for restoration of possession of a land of which Bhumiswami was dispossessed, otherwise than in the due course of law. Various provisions contained in section 250 also clearly indicated that the aforesaid provision was made to apply to a land of Bhumiswami. In sub-section (6) while providing for compensation for wrongful use and occupation of the land, it was stated that the compensation will not exceed ten times of the revenue of the land for each year's occupation. 10. The context of the subject-matter dealt under section 165 relates to the right of transfer or disposition of any interest by a Bhumiswami. In sub-section (6) while providing for compensation for wrongful use and occupation of the land, it was stated that the compensation will not exceed ten times of the revenue of the land for each year's occupation. 10. The context of the subject-matter dealt under section 165 relates to the right of transfer or disposition of any interest by a Bhumiswami. If the disposition regarding a house built on a piece of land held in Bhumiswami right is made in will, the same will definitely relate to disposition of right, title and interest in the land also and therefore, it is not possible to construe disposition that of a house standing on a plot held in Bhumiswami right was permissible during the period unamended section 165 of the Code contained the prohibition regarding disposition of interest of a Bhumiswami by will. However, if the disposition sought to be made in a will was specifically confined to the superstructure only and not affecting the interest in the land held in Bhumiswami rights, the position will be different. It is not so in the present case. 11. Merely by diverting the use of land to non-agricultural purpose and by constructing a house, the land in question does not cease to be a land held in Bhumiswami rights. Wherever the Legislature wanted to take out the non- agricultural lands from the purview of the provisions of section 165, it was specifically done by adding a proviso to the main provision stating that nothing in the main provision shall apply to any land held by a Bhumiswami for non-agricultural purpose. Wherever the Legislature wanted to take out the non- agricultural lands from the purview of the provisions of section 165, it was specifically done by adding a proviso to the main provision stating that nothing in the main provision shall apply to any land held by a Bhumiswami for non-agricultural purpose. The following sub-sections of section 165 along with the proviso added to the same are relevant in this respect: 165(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-- (a) no mortgage of any land by a Bhumiswami shall hereafter be valid unless at least five acres of irrigated or ten acres of unirrigated land is left with him free from any encumbrance or charge; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), no usufructuary mortgage of any land by a Bhumiswami shall hereafter be valid if it is for a period exceeding six years and unless it is a condition of the mortgage that on the expiry of the period mentioned in the mortgage deed, the mortgage shall be deemed, without any payment whatsoever by the Bhumiswami to have been redeemed in full and the mortgagee shall forthwith re-deliver possession of the mortgaged land to the Bhumiswami; (c) if any mortgagee in possession of the land mortgaged does not hand over possession of land after the expiry of the period of the mortgage or six years whichever expires first the mortgagee shall be liable to ejectment by the orders of the Tahsildar as trespasser and the mortgagor shall be placed in possession of the land by the Tahsildar; Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in the case of a mortgage of any land held by a Bhumiswami for non-agricultural purposes; ** ** ** (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no Bhumiswami shall have the right to transfer any land-- (a) in favour of any person who shall as a result of the transfer become entitled to land which together with the land, if any, held by himself or by his family will in the aggregate exceed such ceiling limits as may be prescribed; Provided that -- (i) nothing in this sub-section shall apply-- (a) in the case of a transfer in favour of a Co-operative Society or an institution established for a public, religious or charitable purpose or a transfer for industrial purpose or a transfer by way of mortgage; (b) in the case of a transfer of land held for non-agricultural purpose; Provided further that the transfer of land under sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of the preceding proviso for an industrial purpose shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-- (i) if such land is to be diverted to a non-agricultural purpose the permission of the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 172 for such diversion is obtained prior to such transfer; and (ii) the provisions of section 172 shall apply to such transfer with the modification that the period of three months and six months mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (1) there of shall, for the purposes of an application for such diversion, be forty five days and ninety days respectively. Explanation--For the purposes of this sub-section a person's family shall consist of the person himself, the minor children and the spouse of such person living jointly with him and if such person is a minor then his parents living jointly with him. 12. It was also contended on behalf of the appellant that since a building was constructed on the land, it lost its character as a land held under Bhumiswami rights. It is not possible to accept this contention for two reasons- firstly that utilisation of the land for the purposes of building does not effect the tenure under which it is held. Even if the land or its part has been utilised for building, it will remain the land held in Bhumiswami rights and the provisions of sections 164 and 165 governing the devolution and the right of disposition will even then continue to apply. This view has been consistently followed by this Court and has never been disputed right from 1925 onwards. The following cases are relied for this proposition: - AIR 1925 Nag 197 AIR 1925 Nag 225 AIR 1929 Nag 5 1944 NLJ 467 : AIR 1945 Nag 78 1964 MPLJ 58 . In these cases, it was held that occupancy holding does not acquire some other character merely because a building has been constructed over the same. Further, when the definition of the term 'land' specifically provides that where-ever land is referred to in this Code, it shall be deemed to include all the things attached permanently to it. When a statute enacted that some thing shall be deemed to be such which in fact it is not, the Courts are bound to give effect to the inevitable corollaries. It is true that the fiction cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it was enacted. As discussed above in the context of section 165, there is nothing to suggest that the provisions of sub-section (1) are confined only to agricultural lands or open lands and will cease to apply if the land held by a Bhumiswami has been utilised for building purposes. 13. No such provision had been added to sub-section (1) of section 165 of the Code for excepting the land held for non-agricultural purposes from the operation of the main provision contained in sub-section (1). 14. 13. No such provision had been added to sub-section (1) of section 165 of the Code for excepting the land held for non-agricultural purposes from the operation of the main provision contained in sub-section (1). 14. It is true that thereafter in the year 1961 sub-section (1) of section 165 was amended and the prohibition regarding will was removed by omitting the words "otherwise than by will". This amendment was brought by section 3 of the Second Amendment Act (No. 38 of 1961). In the aforesaid Amendment Act, certain amendments were given retrospective effect by providing that such amendments will be deemed to form part of the original enactment itself, but nothing as such was provided for the amendment brought by section 3. Therefore, the will in the present case concerning the disposition of interest in the land held by a Bhumiswami was definitely hit by the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 165 of the Code. 15. For the reasons stated above, the finding of the lower appellate Court, that the will in question was void and illegal in respect of the suit-property and the defendants did not get any right, title or interest in the property, is correct. 16. No other point was pressed. 17. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee at Rs. 50, if certified.