JUDGMENT (HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN) We are called upon to decide as to whether Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short `the Bombay Tenancy Act') debars an agriculturist from parting with his agricultural land to a non-agriculturist through a Will , so also, whether Section 43 (1) of the Tenancy Act restricts transfer of any land or interest purchased by the tenant under Section 17B, 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32U, 33(1) or 88E or sold to any person under Section 32P or 64 of the Tenancy Act through the execution of a Will by way of testamentary disposition. Learned Single Judges of this Court have taken a consistent view that such transfer of property through testamentary disposition would not violate Section 43 or 63 of the Tenancy Act. Justice J.B.Mehta in the case of Manharlal Ratanlal @ Radmansinh Chausinh v. Taiyabali Jaji Mohmed & others (1967-68 (Vol.5) GLT 199) while interpreting Section 43(1) of the Tenancy Act took the view that the expression `transfer' which is used in Section 43(1) of the Tenancy Act must be interpreted in light of the Transfer of Property Act viz. the transfer by way of act of parties. Learned Judge took the view that, if the Legislature wanted to include a transfer by operation of law as to include succession, insolvency, inheritance, etc. or sales by public auction, specific provision would have been made to that effect. Learned Judge held all the specific categories which are mentioned are all of transfers by act of parties, bequest by Will cannot be included in the scope of the terms `gift' or `assignment'. Justice Rajesh Balia in Ghanshyambhai Nabheram v. State of Gujarat and others ( 1999 (2) GLR 1061 ) while interpreting Section 63 of the Tenancy Act took a view that just like, a non-agriculturist be not deprived of his inheritance, a legatee under a Will, can also be a non-agriculturist, hence, there is no bar in succeeding the property through a testamentary disposition. Learned Judge held that Revenue Laws dealing with agricultural lands have not made the land uninheritable and they also do not disqualify a non-agriculturist from inheritance nor a number of persons are disentitled from succeeding to estate of an agriculturist as body of successors, which may result in well defined share of the estate of deceased vesting in them individually. Learned Judge held that Revenue Laws dealing with agricultural lands have not made the land uninheritable and they also do not disqualify a non-agriculturist from inheritance nor a number of persons are disentitled from succeeding to estate of an agriculturist as body of successors, which may result in well defined share of the estate of deceased vesting in them individually. Justice Rajesh Balia again in Pravinbhai Bhailalbhai Gor v. Rajivkumar Gupta, Collector, Vadodara ( 1999(1) GLR 440 ) while interpreting Section 43 and 63 of the Tenancy Act took the view that both provisions clearly go to show that it refers to only to transaction or transfer or agreement to transfer of land or any interest therein which are inter vivos and not to vesting of such rights in anyone as a result of transmission or as a result of succession on death of holder and the provisions do not affect the operation of law of inheritance. Appeal filed against the above judgment was, however, dismissed in State of Gujarat v. P.B.Gor [ 2000(3) GLR 2168 ]. Justice K.A.Puj also took identical view in Gasfulbhai Mohmadbhai Bilakhia v. State of Gujarat ( 2005(1) GLR 575 ) and Gopiraj Dedraj Agrawal (Gopiram Tudraj Agrawal) v. State of Gujarat ( 2004 (1) GLR 237 ). Learned Judge also made reference to the Circular dated 13.02.1989 issued by the State Government and took a view that that Section 43 as well as 63 of the Tenancy Act would not debar transfer of property by testamentary disposition. Justice R.K.Abichandani also took the same view in Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (1) GLH (UJ) 3. Learned Single Judge Justice Jayant Patel expressed some doubts about the views expressed in the above-referred judgments and felt that the matter requires reconsideration in light of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi (dead) through LR ( AIR 1998 SC 3229 ) and Jayamma v. Maria Bai and another [ (2004) 7 SCC 459 ] and hence, these matters have been placed before us. We may, before examining the scope and ambit of Section 43 and 63 of the Tenancy Act, examine the object and purpose of the Tenancy Act. We may, before examining the scope and ambit of Section 43 and 63 of the Tenancy Act, examine the object and purpose of the Tenancy Act. The Bombay Tenancy Act was enacted with an avowed object of safeguarding interest of the tenants who held the land for over a number of years, on principle that the land tilled to the tillers of the soil and also to preserve agricultural lands to safeguard interest of the agriculturists. Object is also to improve the economic and social conditions of peasants ensuring the full and efficient use of land for agriculture, and to assume management of estates held by landholders and to regulate and impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural lands, dwelling houses, sites and lands appurtenant thereto belonging to or occupied by agriculturists, agricultural labourers and artisans. Chapters II and III of the Act deal with tenancies in general and `protected tenants' and their special rights, and privileges, in particular. Legislature also thought it necessary to confer on `protected tenants' the right to purchase their holdings from their landlords, to prevent uneconomic cultivation and to create and encourage peasant proprietorship in respect of holdings of suitable sizes. The Act is covered by Entry 18 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and was enacted for the protection of tenants and to organize agriculture by maintaining agricultural lands so as to be in tune with the directive principles of the State policy. Article 48 of the Constitution of India state that the State shall endeavour to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines, and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and drought cattle. The necessity of meeting agricultural production and to preserve agricultural land is clearly discernible in the above constitutional provisions. Further, by enacting clause (g) in Article 51(A), Parliament has given the status of fundamental duties to Article 48 and honoured the spirit and message of Article 48 as a fundamental duty of the citizens. The necessity of meeting agricultural production and to preserve agricultural land is clearly discernible in the above constitutional provisions. Further, by enacting clause (g) in Article 51(A), Parliament has given the status of fundamental duties to Article 48 and honoured the spirit and message of Article 48 as a fundamental duty of the citizens. The Bombay Tenancy Act not only takes a positive step towards achieving the goal of transferring the land tilled to the tillers, but also wanted to preserve and protect agricultural lands and for improving the economic and social conditions of persons and to ensure the full and efficient use of land for agriculture. Section 43, which appears in Chapter III of the Tenancy Act, deals with special rights and privileges of tenants and provisions for distribution of land for personal cultivation. Section 63 appears in Chapter V of the Tenancy Act deals with restrictions on transfers of agricultural lands, management of uncultivated lands and acquisition of estates and lands. Learned Counsel Mr.A.J.Patel appearing for the petitioners submitted that both Sections 43 and 63 of the Tenancy Act have clearly omitted disposition of property by way of Will. Learned counsel submitted that expression transfer used in Section 43(1) must be interpreted in light of the Transfer of Property Act and it can only mean transfer by the act of the parties in the context of those Sections as there are no compelling reasons which would justify any departure from the statutory definition by anything repugnant in the subject or context. Further learned counsel submitted that it has been the consistent view taken by this Court for more than several decades and also stand taken by the Government in its circular dated 13.02.1989. Reference was also made to the Notification No.167278-M dated 21.12.1957 and Notification dated 13.02.1989. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to various judgments and circulars issued by the State Government, several agricultural properties were settled by way of testamentary disposition and lot of lands converted as non agricultural by the non-agriculturists and are put to use for non agricultural purpose. Learned counsel also submitted that things already settled shall not be unsettled causing serious prejudice to the parties. Learned counsel referred to several decisions in support of his contentions on the applicability of doctrine of stare decisis. Reference was made to the decisions of the Apex Court viz. Learned counsel also submitted that things already settled shall not be unsettled causing serious prejudice to the parties. Learned counsel referred to several decisions in support of his contentions on the applicability of doctrine of stare decisis. Reference was made to the decisions of the Apex Court viz. Mishrilal v. Dhirendra Nath (dead) by Lrs & Ors. - 1994 (4) SCC 288, Milkfood Ltd. v. GMC IceCream (P) Ltd.- 2004 (7) SCC 288 , Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan - AIR 1965 SC 845 , Minerva Mills Ltd and others v. Union of India & others - AIR 1980 SC 1789 , Indra Sawhney etc. v. Union of India and others - AIR 1993 SC 477 , Ram Adhar Singh (dead) the Lrs & others v. Bansi (dead) through Lrs - AIR 1987 SC 987 , Darshan Singh v. Ram Pal Singh - AIR 1991 SC 1654 , Saurashtra Cement & Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 2001 (1) SCC 91 . Learned counsel also referred to few decisions on the applicability of doctrine of legitimate expectations. Reference was made to judgments reported in Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector & ETIO - 2007 (5) SCC 447 , Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others - 2008 (10) SCC 1 , National Building Construction Corporation v. S.Raghunathan and others - 1998 (7) SCC 66 , Navjyoti Co-group Housing Society etc v. Union of India - AIR 1993 SC 155 , Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India- AIR 1989 SC 2138 . Learned counsel also submitted that legislature has consciously not included the expression Will in both Sections, and here the Court cannot read into something as causus omissus. Learned counsel has cited few decisions in support of his contentions and relied on Tratuf Safety Glass Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. - 2007 (7) SCC 242 , D.R.Venkatachalam v. Dy. Transport Commissioner - AIR 1977 SC 842 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Popular Trading Company, Ujjain - 2000 (5) SCC 511 . Learned Counsel also submitted that the principle laid down by of the Apex Court in the cases of Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi (Supra) and Jayamma (Supra) is inapplicable when we interpret Section 43 and 63 of the Tenancy Act, especially, in the absence of a non-obstante clause. Learned Counsel also submitted that the principle laid down by of the Apex Court in the cases of Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi (Supra) and Jayamma (Supra) is inapplicable when we interpret Section 43 and 63 of the Tenancy Act, especially, in the absence of a non-obstante clause. Learned counsel submitted that when the words used are capable of only one construction, it will not be open to the Courts to adopt any hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the object and policy of the Act. Shri Sunit Shah, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that if an agriculturist is permitted to part with agricultural land to a non-agriculturist, through a testamentary disposition, the same will defeat the very object and purpose of the Act. Reference was made to the objects, reasons and purpose of the Tenancy Act as well as the principles laid down by the Apex Court while dealing with the various Tenancy Laws in support of his contentions. Learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on State of Punjab and others v. Amar Singh ( AIR 1974 SC 994 ), The State of Haryana and others v. Sampuran Singh ( AIR 1975 SC 1952 ), State of Karnataka and others v. Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd. ( AIR 1995 SC 234 ), etc. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the law does not permit to do something indirectly, which cannot be done directly. Learned Government Pleader submitted that when law does not permit an agriculturist to part with his property during his life time to a non-agriculturist, it would then be against public policy, if permitted to effect after his death, which cannot be done during his life time. We, at the outset, would like to point out that the expression Will as such does not figure either in Section 43 or Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. We, at the outset, would like to point out that the expression Will as such does not figure either in Section 43 or Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. Section 43 in its entirety is also extracted hereunder for easy reference: 43(1) No land or any interest therein purchased by a tenant under sections 17B, 32, 32F, 32I, 32O (32U, 431D or 88E) or sold to any person under section 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 except in 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. (1A) The sanction under sub-section (1) shall be given by the Collector in such circumstances and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed by the State Government. (1AA) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), it shall be lawful for such tenant or a person to mortgage or create a charge on his interests in the land in favour of the State Government in consideration of a loan advanced to him by the State Government under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1983, the Agriculturists' Loans Act, 1984, or the Bombay Non-agriculturists' Loans Act, 192, as in force in the State of Gujarat, or in favour of a bank or co-operative society, and without prejudice to any other remedy open to the State Government, bank or co-operative society, as the case may be, in the event of his making default in payment of such loan in accordance with the terms on which such loan was granted, it shall be lawful for the State Government, bank or co-operative society, as the case may be, to cause his interest in the land to be attached and sold and the proceeds to be applied in payment of such loan. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, bank means - (a) the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955; (b) any subsidiary bank as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959; (c) any corresponding new bank as defined in clause (d) of section 2 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970; (d) the Agricultural Refinance and Development Corporation, established under the Agricultural Refinance and Development Corporation Act, 1963. (1B) Nothing in sub-section (1) or (1AA) shall apply to land purchased under section 32, 32F, 32-O or 64 by a permanent tenant thereof, if prior to the purchase, the permanent tenant, by usage, custom, agreement or decree or order of a court, held a transferable right in the tenancy of the land. 43(2) Any transfer or partition, or any agreement of transfer, or any land or any interest therein in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be invalid. Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, however, uses word `assignment'. Word `assignment' has been given statutory meaning by the Apex Court while examining the scope of Section 21 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi (Supra). In that case, one Sangappa Bangi made an application under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. During the pendency of the proceedings, he made a Will on 8.4.1975 bequeathing his tenancy rights in respect of the land in favour of one Ameerjan who claims to be the legal representative of the appellant-Sangappa who died during pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. She in turn executed another Will under which Husensab is making a claim to the land through the said Sangappa. Land Tribunal as well as Appellate Tribunal examined whether rights to tenancy could have been the subject matter of a bequest under a Will. Apex Court took the view that assignment of any interest in the tenanted land will not be valid. A devise or a bequest under a Will cannot be stated to fall outside the scope of the said provision inasmuch as such assignment disposes of or deals with the lease. Apex Court took the view that assignment of any interest in the tenanted land will not be valid. A devise or a bequest under a Will cannot be stated to fall outside the scope of the said provision inasmuch as such assignment disposes of or deals with the lease. Apex Court also held that when there is a disposition of rights under a Will though operates posthumously is nevertheless recognition of the right of the legatee thereunder as to his rights of the tenanted land. In that event, there is an assignment of the tenanted land, but that right will come into effect after the death of the testator. The purpose behind Section 21 is not to allow strangers to the family of the tenant to come upon the land. The Apex Court held that tenanted land is not allowed to be sub-let i.e. to pass to the hands of a stranger nor any kind of assignment taking place in respect of the lease held. If the tenant could assign his interest, strangers can come upon the land, and therefore, the expression `assignment' in Section 21 will have to be given such meaning as to promote the object of the enactment. Above decision in Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi (Supra) was later followed in Jayamma case while interpreting Section 61(1) & (3), 21(1), 2(A)(12) & (17) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 The question arose whether the expression `assignment' would take in a will. The Court held that on a fair construction of Section 61, a transfer of agricultural land with occupancy right is permissible only in favour of one of the heirs, who would be entitled to claim partition of land, and not others, having regard to the definition of `family' as contained in Section 2(12) and `joint family' as contained in Section 2(17) of the said Act. The Court felt that the purpose and object of the Legislature sought to be achieved by enacting Section 61 of the KLR Act is such that `assignment' would include `assignment by a will'. Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act uses same expression `assignment', and in our view, the same meaning attributed by the Apex Court to the word `assignment' be attributed to Section 43 as well. We find no reason to ascribe a different meaning to that word in the context of Bombay Tenancy Act. Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act uses same expression `assignment', and in our view, the same meaning attributed by the Apex Court to the word `assignment' be attributed to Section 43 as well. We find no reason to ascribe a different meaning to that word in the context of Bombay Tenancy Act. We also hold that when there is a disposition of rights under a Will, though operates posthumously, is nevertheless a recognition of the right of the legatee thereunder as to his rights of the tenanted land. If Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act does not apply in such a situation then the tenant could assign his interest to strangers, which will completely negatives the object and purpose of Section 43 and defeat the intents of the legislature. We, therefore, hold that the word `assignment' in Section 43 would take in a `Will' also and is governed by the statutory provisions and the same shall be parted, only with the previous sanction of the Collector. Statutory tenancies, therefore, cannot be devised by `Will', nor do they become subject to the rules of intestacy. We, therefore, answer the reference accordingly. We may now examine the scope of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act which deals with restrictions of transfer of agricultural lands which debars transfer of agricultural land of agriculturist to a non-agriculturists. Section 63 is extracted hereunder for easy reference: 63. We, therefore, answer the reference accordingly. We may now examine the scope of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act which deals with restrictions of transfer of agricultural lands which debars transfer of agricultural land of agriculturist to a non-agriculturists. Section 63 is extracted hereunder for easy reference: 63. Transfers to non-agriculturist barred : (1) Save as provided in this Act, - (a) no sale (including sales in execution of a decree of a Civil Court or for recovery of arrears of land revenue or for sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue, gift, exchange or lease of any land or interest therein, or (b) no mortgage of any land or interest therein, in which the possession of the mortgaged property is delivered to the mortgagee, (c) no agreement made by an instrument in writing for the sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage of any land or interest therein, shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist or who being an agriculturist cultivates personally land not less than the ceiling area whether as an owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant or who is not an agricultural labourer; Provided that the Collector or an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may grant permission for such sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage, or for such agreement on such conditions as may be prescribed; Provided further that no such permission shall be granted, where land is being sold to a person who is not an agriculturist for agricultural purpose, if the annual income of such person from other sources exceed five thousand rupees. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the sale, gift, exchange or lease, or the agreement for the sale, gift, exchange, or lease of a dwelling house or the site thereof or any land appurtenant to it in favour of an agricultural labourer or an artisan or a person carrying on any allied pursuit. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply or be deemed to have applied to a mortgage of any land or interest therein effected in favour of a cooperative society as security for the loan advanced by such society or any transfer declared to be a mortgage by a court under section 24 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1947. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply or be deemed to have applied to a mortgage of any land or interest therein effected in favour of a cooperative society as security for the loan advanced by such society or any transfer declared to be a mortgage by a court under section 24 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1947. (4) Nothing in section 63A shall apply to any sale made under sub-section (1). Section 63 unlike Section 43 of the Act does not contain the word `assignment'. Contention was raised that since no such word `assignment' occurs in Section 63, there is no restriction in the matter of transfer of agricultural lands to non-agriculturist through a testamentary disposition. Before examining the contention, it may be mentioned the word `Will' as such is not defined under the Bombay Tenancy Act, but Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession Act defines the word `Will' to mean a legal declaration of the intention of the testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death. A Will, therefore, is dependent upon the testator's death for its vigour and effect and is liable to be revoked or altered during his life time. Question is while he is alive, can he make an illegal declaration through a `Will' so as to defeat the object and purpose of the legislation. Will not such a declaration be opposed to public policy being repugnant to the public interest. Policy of the Act is discernible from the preamble, marginal note, title and Section 43 and 63 and other related provisions and the Directive Principles of State Policy. Where the legislature deem it expedient to fetter the privilege of free alienation, the prohibition founded upon conditions of public interest, must be treated as obsolete. General rule is that property of any kind may be transferred by way of gift or Will, sale, etc. unless non-transferability is barred due to existence of any law. Willian's law relating to Will, Sixth Edition, Volume I, page 60 states that the power of disposition by Will is not at the testators caprice, but extends only to the creation of those interests, which are recognized by law. Theobold on Wills, Fourth Edition, Pg.629, says that a condition which is illegal or contrary to the policy of the law is void. Theobold on Wills, Fourth Edition, Pg.629, says that a condition which is illegal or contrary to the policy of the law is void. Tenancy Act has not authorised parting of agricultural land to a non-agriculturist without the permission of the authorised officer, therefore, if it is permitted, through a testamentary disposition, it will be defeating the very soul of the legislation, which cannot be permitted. We wonder when testator statutorily debarred from transferring the agricultural lands to a non-agriculturist during his life time, then how he can be permitted to make a declaration of his intention to transfer agricultural land to a non-agriculturist to be operative after his death. Such attempt of testator, in our view, is clearly against the public policy and would defeat the object and purpose of the Tenancy Act. Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act acknowledges testamentary succession as a mode of succession, but not, by defeating the purpose and object of any legislation, like Tenancy Law. The legislative intent that an agricultural land shall not go into the hands of a non-agriculturist is manifest in Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. In a country like ours where agriculture is the main source of livelihood, the restriction imposed in Section 63, cannot be given a go-by, by a devise. Obvious purpose of Section 63, is to prevent indiscriminate conversion of agricultural lands for non agricultural purpose and that provision strengthens the presumption that agricultural land is not to be used as per the holders caprice or sweet-will. We have noticed, that the title of Chapter V, and the marginal note to Section 63 restricts and bars the transfer of agricultural land to non-agriculturist, which also gives us a clue, when we interpret that Section. Object, title and marginal note indicates the underlying purpose and policy of the legislation. Underlying purpose and objects of the Tenancy Act is not to transfer the agricultural land to a non-agriculturist but will be frustrated if permitted by a testamentary disposition. Such a devise, is void, if it defeats the purpose of a legislation for an illegal purpose. The expression `transfer' was interpreted by the Apex Court in the context of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Such a devise, is void, if it defeats the purpose of a legislation for an illegal purpose. 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. 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 enunciation of law and stand over-ruled. We, therefore, hold that Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act also bars the transfer of agricultural land by an agriculturist to a non-agriculturist for non-agricultural purpose unless permission is obtained from the Collector or any authorised officer as provided in that Section. We are informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that large number of agricultural lands have already been transferred through testamentary disposition to non agriculturists and are in use and if the settled position is unsettled the same will cause considerable prejudice and inconvenience to the parties. We are of the view that there are matters to be considered by the learned Single Judge depending upon facts of each case and equities can be worked out accordingly, on which, we express no opinion. We are only called upon to answer the scope of Section 43 and 63 of the Tenancy Act, which we have already answered. Consequently, we send back all the Special Civil Applications to the learned Single Judge for disposal as per the law declared.