G. T. NANAVATI, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS father Bhagubhai became deemed purchaser of Survey No. 18 of village Karanj Taluka Choryasi District Surat by virtue of sec. 32 read with sec. 32g of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereafter referred to as the Tenancy Act ). On his death his heirs (1) Ishverbhai (2) Haribhai (3) Champaklal (4) Shantaben and (5) Gangaben became the joint owners of the said property. By a deed of relinquishment dated 1-12-1964 the other co- owners relinquished their respective shares in favour of the petitioners. On an application made by the petitioner a mutation entry was made to that effect in the revenue records. However the Mamlatdar by his order dated 30-5-1967 cancelled that entry on the ground that the transfer was void according to sec. 43 of the Tenancy Act. That order was confirmed in appeal by the Assistant Collector. The petitioner then filed a further appeal before the Collector who held that second appeal did not lie; and therefore treated it as a revision application under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules. He confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector and dismissed the revision application. The petitioner then filed a revision application before the Special Secretary Revenue Department. That was also dismissed. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) MR. Shelat the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that relinquishment of a share as in the present case cannot amount to a transfer much less a transfer as contemplated by sec. 43 of the Tenancy Act; and therefore the authorities below committed an error in taking the view that the transfer was void as it was made in contravention of sec. 43 of the Tenancy Act. He further submitted that this erroneous view of law has vitiated the orders passed by the authorities below. ( 3 ) SEC. 43 (1) of the Tenancy Act reads as follows: ]"43 No land or any interest therein purchased by a tenant under sec. 17r 32 32 321 320 32 or 43-ID or sold to any person under sec. He further submitted that this erroneous view of law has vitiated the orders passed by the authorities below. ( 3 ) SEC. 43 (1) of the Tenancy Act reads as follows: ]"43 No land or any interest therein purchased by a tenant under sec. 17r 32 32 321 320 32 or 43-ID or sold to any person under sec. 32p or 64 shall be transferred or shall be agreed by an instrument in writing to be transferred by sale gift exchange mortgage lease or assignment without the previous sanction of the Collector and exception consideration of payment of such amount as the State Government may by general or special order determine; and no such land or any interest therein shall be partitioned without the previous sanction of the Collector". ( 4 ) WHAT this section provides is that a tenant who has purchased land under secs. 17b 32 32 321 320 32 or 43-1d or a person to whom land is sold under sec. 32p or 64 shall not transfer such land either by sale gift exchange mortgage lease or assignment without the previous sanction of the Collector. It further provides that such transfer can be effected after obtaining previous sanction of the Collector on payment of such amount as the State Government may by general or special order determine. Even in respect of a partition this section provides that it shall not be affected without the previous sanction of the Collector. On an analysis of this section two things become apparent. It does not prohibit all types of transfers; and secondly the prohibition is not absolute. For instance it does not prohibit a transfer pursuant to a testamentary instrument. Even the type of transfers specified in the said section can be effected with the previous sanction of the Collector. It therefore becomes obvious that unless the transfer is of a type specified ill the section it is not prohibited by it. The question therefore which requires to be considered in this case is whether relinquishment of a share as in the present case can amount to a transfer as contemplated by sec 43 (1) of the Tenancy Act ? As pointed out earlier this is a case of relinquishment of a share by a co-parcener in favour of the remaining co-parceners. The question therefore which requires to be considered in this case is whether relinquishment of a share as in the present case can amount to a transfer as contemplated by sec 43 (1) of the Tenancy Act ? As pointed out earlier this is a case of relinquishment of a share by a co-parcener in favour of the remaining co-parceners. It is well-settled that relinquishment of an interest in an immovable property by a co-parcener has the effect of only an effacement or extinction of the interest of the releasor in the property. As a result of relinquishment of his share by a co-owner number of members who remain entitled to participate in the estate gets reduced. It does not lead to any transfer of right title or interest in the property. This is not a case where a person who had no right or interest in the property was given such a right by the release deed. The Mamlatdar had not cancelled the mutation entry made in the revenue record on the ground that it was not a genuine release deed. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case it must be held that the authorities below committed an error in taking the view that the relinquishment of shares by the remaining co-owners amounted to a transfer prohibited by sec. 43 (1) of the Tenancy Act. This basic error of law on the part of the authorities below has vitiated the orders passed by them; and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. ( 5 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Mamlatdar the Assistant Collector the Collector and the Special Secretary at Annexures A B and C are hereby quashed and set aside. The Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. (TPV) Rule made absolute. .