JUDGMENT : Dinesh Maheshwari, J. 1. This intra-court appeal by the State of Meghalaya through the Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya in its Revenue & Disaster Management Department and the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong is directed against the order dated 31.07.2015 as passed in WP(C) No.143 of 2010 whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has declared invalid the provisions contained in the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 [hereafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971'] as amended by the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2010 [Act No.11 of 2012 - hereinafter also referred to as 'the Amendment Act'], particularly where a "Will" has also been included in the definition of "transfer" for the purpose of the Act of 1971. In the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has even directed the present appellants 'to take steps' to delete the word "Will" occurring in the statute in question. 2. It could be noticed at the outset that the basic dispute in the matter has been, and is, that of competing claims over the property said to be comprising Plot No.4 at G.C. Phukan's land, Upper New Colony, Laitumkhrah, Shillong, with the private parties (the respondents herein) being the rival claimants of succession. The present appellants, who are otherwise not having any title claim over the property in question, however, chose to take up the litigation by way of the writ petition aforesaid while seeking to question an order dated 20.01.2010, as passed by the Meghalaya Board of Revenue ['the Board'] in an appeal filed by Shri Bimol Deb (since deceased and now represented by his wife Smti. Gauri Deb-respondent No.1 herein) in relation to his prayer for mutation on the basis of a Will executed by the erstwhile owner. The appellants contended before the learned Single Judge that the order so passed by the Board was standing at conflict with Section 3 of the Act of 1971 and that by virtue of its amendment by Act No. 11 of 2012, a 'Will' was also a mode of transfer governed by the Act of 1971. However, the learned Single Judge held invalid the amendment so made and issued the directions aforesaid. The relevant background aspects: 3. However, the learned Single Judge held invalid the amendment so made and issued the directions aforesaid. The relevant background aspects: 3. For a proper comprehension of the matter in issue, the relevant background aspects could be taken note of as follows: As noticed, the dispute essentially relates to the rival claims of succession to the property in question. Late Shri Prabhat Chandra Deka was a title holder of the property in question, who had allegedly bequeathed the same to one Shri Indrajit Dutta and to the said Shri Bimol Deb. It appears that Shri Indrajit Dutta did not take any step as regards the property in question until his demise but later on, Shri Bimol Deb filed an application for grant of probate in the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong which was registered as Probate Misc. Case No.2 (T) of 2008. The said Additional Deputy Commissioner, by the order dated 24.02.2009, granted probate in favour of Shri Bimol Deb who, after obtaining the probate, filed an application for mutation of the land in his name (Mutation Case No.51 of 2009). 4. The aforesaid application for mutation was, however, rejected by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) by the order dated 07.08.2009, essentially on the ground that in relation to the property in question, Shri Sisir Kr Deka (respondent No.2 herein), son of Shri Prabhat Chandra Deka, had already applied for mutation in the year 1999 and his application was allowed on 12.10.1999 when no one filed any objection thereto. This order dated 07.08.2009 reads as under : "In The Court Of The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Shillong. Mutation Case No. 51 Of 2009 Subject - Mutation Application Filed By Shri Bimal Deb In Respect Of The Land Located At G.C. Phukan's Land, Upper New Colony, Laitumkhrah, Shillong Covered By Plot No. 4. ORDER Dated : 07.08.2009. Case Record is put up together with the mutation application filed by Sisir Kr. Deka in respect of this same plot of land. On perusal of the records, it appears that Shri Prabhat Chandra Deka made a will on 27.01.1989, for which Shri Indrajit Dutta, and in the alternative, Shri Bimal Deb, was made its executor. Shri Prabhat Chandra Deka died on 22.07.1989. Shri Indrajit Dutta died on 21.04.2007 without executing the will. In the meantime, Shri Sisir Kr. On perusal of the records, it appears that Shri Prabhat Chandra Deka made a will on 27.01.1989, for which Shri Indrajit Dutta, and in the alternative, Shri Bimal Deb, was made its executor. Shri Prabhat Chandra Deka died on 22.07.1989. Shri Indrajit Dutta died on 21.04.2007 without executing the will. In the meantime, Shri Sisir Kr. Deka applied for mutation of the said land in his name, as he is the only son of Shri Prabhat Chandra Deka, to which his mother had no objection. His application was made in the year 1999. The ADC (Rev) ordered for notices to be issued on 30.08.1999, and the mutation application by Shri Sisir Kr. Deka was allowed vide order dated 12.10.1999. The said order stated that no one had filed any objection against his application for mutation, within the stipulated time. The instant application for mutation was made by Shri Bimal Deb on 15.07.2007, almost eighteen years after the death of Shri Prabhat Chandra Deka, in whose name the land was previously leased. Shri Indrajit Dutta, who was originally made the executor of the will of Shri Prabhat Chandra Deka, never executed the will during his lifetime though he died almost eighteen years after the death of Shri Prabhat Chandra Deka - nor did he file any objection to the application for mutation of the land/its records by Shri Sisir Kumar Deka, son of Shri Prabhat Chandra Deka, which he should have done, if he felt he had a genuine claim to it. The instant application therefore, in light of all the facts and circumstances discussed herein-before, has no merit and is hereby rejected." 5. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, Shri Bimol Deb filed a revenue appeal that was allowed by the Board in its order dated 20.01.2010 with the observations, inter alia, as under : "The Board feels that of the three grounds mentioned by the learned ADC Revenue for rejecting the mutation application of Shri Bimol Deb Appellant, the ground That the will was not probated during the life time of (L) Shri Prabhat Chandra Deka is not sustainable. In fact this observation amounts to the ADC Revenue acting like an Appellate Court against the probate order for which she does not have the jurisdiction. The Board will not therefore examine the merits or demerits of the probate order, or the delay in filing the probate. In fact this observation amounts to the ADC Revenue acting like an Appellate Court against the probate order for which she does not have the jurisdiction. The Board will not therefore examine the merits or demerits of the probate order, or the delay in filing the probate. Suffice it to say that the probate order is conclusive proof of the title of Shri Bimol Deb the Appellant to the suit property. The failure of Shri Indrajit Dutta or Shri Bimol Deb to file the objection against mutation of Shri Sisir Deka and the subsequent issue of lease in favour of Shri Sisir Deka does not mean that the property belongs to Shri Sisir Deka as it appears in the 2007 (5&6) SPR 12 Suraj Bhan & Ors v. Finance Commissioner & Ors where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that an entry in Revenue records (in this case the lease document) does not confer title on a person (in this case Shri Sisir Deka) whose names appears in the Records of Rights. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further holds that it is settled law that entries in the Revenue Records or Jamabandi have only 'fiscal purpose' i,e, payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and Ors,. AIR 1994 SC 1653 ). In view the above, the Board feels that the learned ADC Revenue has not taken due note of evidentiary value of the probate order in deciding the ownership of the suit property while passing the impugned order dated 7.8.09. rejecting the mutation petition of the Appellant. In view thereof the impugned order is quashed and the appeal is allowed." 6. In view the above, the Board feels that the learned ADC Revenue has not taken due note of evidentiary value of the probate order in deciding the ownership of the suit property while passing the impugned order dated 7.8.09. rejecting the mutation petition of the Appellant. In view thereof the impugned order is quashed and the appeal is allowed." 6. It had been against the aforesaid order of the Board that the present appellants chose to prefer the writ petition in this Court while stating the basic ground of challenge as under:- "(h) That the Meghalaya Board of Revenue has failed to appreciate the fact that the execution of the Will by (L) Prabhat Chandra Deka in favour of Indrajit Dutta and Bimol Deb (the Respondent No.1) is hit by Section No.3 of the Meghalaya Land Transfer Act, 1971 in as much as the said Will executed by Shri Prabhat Chandra Deka in favour of Shri Indrajit Dutta and Bimol Deb (Respondent No.1) is a disguise of transfer of property in violation of Section 3 of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971. The said transfer by means of the Will has been done without obtaining the sanction from the competent authority and as such the impugned order dated 20-01-2010 passed by the Meghalaya Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside and quashed. (i) That the execution of the Will is also in contravention of the instruction dated 13-06-1979 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Revenue Department, a copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-5" 7. The said writ petition was filed in the year 2010 and, as noticed, during the pendency of the writ petition, substantial amendments were made to the Act of 1971 by way of the said Amendment Act that came into force in the year 2012 [Act No.11 of 2012]. The submissions in the writ petition and the observations in the order impugned : 8. The present appellants urged before the learned Single Judge that the suggestion about seeking mutation on the basis of a Will by the erstwhile owner was hit by Section 3 of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971. The submissions in the writ petition and the observations in the order impugned : 8. The present appellants urged before the learned Single Judge that the suggestion about seeking mutation on the basis of a Will by the erstwhile owner was hit by Section 3 of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971. It was also submitted that the Act of 1971 was amended by the Meghalaya State Legislature by way of Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2010 that received the assent of the President of India on 12.04.2012 and was published in the Gazette of Meghalaya Extraordinary on 27.04.2012 whereby, the definition of "transfer" as occurring in Section 2 of the Act of 1971 was amended and except certain nature Wills, as specified in Section 3A (1) (c) thereof, every other Will was also included in the inclusive definition with the effect that, all the requirements of the Act of 1971 for a valid and proper transfer became applicable to the Will also. 9. Though the provisions of the Act of 1971 as also of the Amendment Act were never put to question by anyone but the learned Single Judge took exception against the same with reference to the definition of "Will" as also the definition of "transfer of property" and of "conveyance" and thereafter, observed that the State Legislature, by including Will within the parameter of transfer of property and conveyance, had overstepped its constitutional limitation; and held that the Act No.11 of 2012 had been "wrongly legislated" and, as noticed at the outset, issued direction to the present appellants to take steps to delete the expression 'Will' occurring in the statute in question. 10. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, observed, held and directed as under : "20. If we read the definition of "Transfer of property" and "Conveyance" quoted and discussed above, it becomes very apparent that, by including "Will" Within The Meaning Of "Conveyance", The State Legislature has rewritten the definition of "conveyance" which is illegal exercise of power; but the State legislature in the first place has no power to alter the definition of conveyance legislated by the parliament. The inclusion of "Will" has to be struck down as illegal since the State legislature cannot overstep in the field of Union list while legislating law. The inclusion of "Will" has to be struck down as illegal since the State legislature cannot overstep in the field of Union list while legislating law. The issue of succession is solely in the field of the Union list and not in concurrent list. Safe legal inference can be drawn that the insertion of WILL in clause 2 (d) of the Meghalaya Land Transfer Amendment Act, 2012 quoted above is blatant case of illegal legislation and is liable to be struck out. The subsequent amendment in section 3A restricting the devolution of property only to immediate family members will have to meet the same fate and to be struck down. 21. It is admitted position of law that, "Transfer of Property" as defined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is between living person. State legislature by including "Will" within the parameter of transfer of property and conveyance has overstepped its constitutional limitation and legislated in the field of List 1 Article 246 of the Constitution of India (88), which gives power to the parliament only to legislate law on succession of property. The power to legislate law on succession of property is not in the domain in the concurrent list. State legislature has no constitutional authority to legislate law in serial 88 of List 1 Article 246 of the Constitution of India. 22. For the reasons discussed above, it is also admitted and apparent that, "Will" does not come within the parameter of any other mode of transfer. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the Meghalaya Land Transfer Amendment Act No. 11 of 2012 has been wrongly legislated by bringing the "Will" within the meaning of transfer of any other mode of transfer of property. Insertion of "Will" at 2(d) of the Meghalaya Land Transfer Amendment Act No. 11 of 2012 is illegal and blatant case of overstepping legislative competence laid down under the Constitution of India. 23. On perusal of the Impugned order dated 20.01.2010 at Annexure-IV, I agree with the observation made by the Meghalaya Board of Revenue that, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Shillong has acted like a appellate court against the probate order for which, she does not have the jurisdiction. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the Impugned order dated 20.01.2010 passed by the Meghalaya Board of Revenue. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the Impugned order dated 20.01.2010 passed by the Meghalaya Board of Revenue. We must remember that, as per the Indian Succession Act, 1925 "Will" cannot be restricted in favour of family members only, otherwise, the sanctity and basic purpose of "Will" is bound to be defeated. The petitioner (State of Meghalaya) is also directed to take immediate steps to delete the word "Will" from section 2 (d) and 3 (A) from Meghalaya Act No. 11 of 2012. 24. With these observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands dismissed and stands disposed of." The aforesaid observations and directions have led the writ petitioners-appellants to prefer this intra-court appeal. Submissions in the Appeal and Subsequent Events : 11. We have heard learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants as also learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 at length. On the fundamental and basic aspects, the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the provisions as contained in the Act of 1971 also the Amendment Act were not put to challenge by any person. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the purpose and object of the Amendment Act; and that the amendment was in conformity with Article 254 of the Constitution of India; and further that the provisions in question were not in any way diluting or interfering with the Indian Succession Act. It is also contended that in fact, such directions as to delete the words incorporated in the statute could not have been issued by the Court because, for the purpose of undoing of any statutory amendment, another amendment has to be brought about by the legislature. 12. On the other hand, as regards the competing claims, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No.2 that the probate earlier granted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong for the Will in question in Probate Misc. Case No.2 (T) of 2008 stands withdrawn by the order dated 06.11.2014, as passed in Probate Misc. Case No.1 (T) of 2013. Per Contra, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No.1 that in the said proceedings in Probate Misc. Case No.2 (T) of 2008 stands withdrawn by the order dated 06.11.2014, as passed in Probate Misc. Case No.1 (T) of 2013. Per Contra, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No.1 that in the said proceedings in Probate Misc. Case No.1 (T) of 2013, the relatives of Late Shri Bimol Deb were never arrayed as parties and in fact, the said proceedings stood abated, particularly when the process server clearly reported in his service report dated 23.07.2013 that Shri Bimol Deb had already expired. It is also submitted that the said order, as passed without substitution of legal representative of Late Shri Bimal Deb, could only be regarded as nullity, for having been passed against the dead person. 13. Having given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we are clearly of the view that the order impugned cannot be approved but at the same time, in view of subsequent events and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to restore the relevant proceedings for consideration afresh by the authorities concerned The Act of 1971 and its amendment by way of Act No. 11 of 2012 : 14. It is noticed that the Act of 1971 has been essentially enacted for regulating the transfer of land in the State of Meghalaya and for protection of the Scheduled Tribes therein; and it extends to the tribal areas within the State of Meghalaya as specified in Part II of the Table appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. As per the mandate of Section 3 of the Act of 1971, no land in Meghalaya could be transferred by a tribal to a non-tribal or by a non-tribal to another non-tribal except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. However, the Government of Meghalaya has also been given the power to prohibit by way of notification, any transfer of land within such area or areas as may be specified. The provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1971 could be taken note of as under: "3. However, the Government of Meghalaya has also been given the power to prohibit by way of notification, any transfer of land within such area or areas as may be specified. The provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1971 could be taken note of as under: "3. (1) No land in Meghalaya shall be transferred by a tribal to a non-tribal or by a non-tribal to another non-tribal except with the previous sanction of the competent authority; Provided that the Government of Meghalaya is satisfied may, from time to time, by notification, prohibit any transfer of land within such area or areas as may be specified in the notification and thereupon the competent authority shall not sanction any such transfer of land under the provision of this Act, within such area of areas. Provided further that no notification made under the preceding proviso shall apply to transfer of land for any of the purpose mentioned in clause (e) or clause (f) of sub-section (I) of section 4. (2) every notification issued under the proviso to sub-section (1) of this section shall : (i) have effect on the date of its first publication in the Official Gazette of Meghalaya; (ii) be laid, as soon as may be after its publication in the Official Gazette, before the House of the Legislative Assembly of the State; (3) Any transfer of land made in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be void and shall not be enforceable in any court." 15. In the Act of 1971, as originally enacted, the definition of "transfer" had been as under : "(d) "transfer" means the conveyance of land from one person to another and includes gift, sale, exchange, mortgage, lease, surrender or any other mode of transfer." 16. In the Act of 1971, as originally enacted, the definition of "transfer" had been as under : "(d) "transfer" means the conveyance of land from one person to another and includes gift, sale, exchange, mortgage, lease, surrender or any other mode of transfer." 16. Later on, the Act of 1971 was amended by way of Amendment Act [Act No. 11 of 2012] and the meaning of the expression "transfer" was expanded by way of the following clause substituted in place of the earlier clause 2(d) : "2.(d) "transfer" means the conveyance of land of one person to another and includes gift, sale, exchange, mortgage, lease, surrender, will other than will covered by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3A, license or any mode of transfer or any authority which confers rights upon a non-tribal to use or to derive benefits from the land as an owner." By the same amendment, Section 3A was also inserted to the Act of 1971, which reads as under : "3A (1) Nothing in sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall apply to any transfer of land of an owner taking place : (a) By devolution and succession according to the personal law governing him; (b) by way of partition or settlement amongst the immediate members of his family; Explanation "Immediate members of his family" means lineal descendants and includes husband, wife, mother, father, mother's brother, father's sister, son, daughter including step-son, step-daughter and adopted son, adopted daughter and son or daughter of the mother's brother or sister, fathers sister or brother, (c) by a will created by him in favour of his parents, legally married spouse, son or legally adopted son, daughter or legally adopted daughter, grandson or grand daughter, son-in-law or daughter-in-law, (2) Every transfer taking place under sub-section (1) shall, within a period of six months from the date the transfer becomes effective, be registered"." The order impugned cannot be sustained : 17. As noticed, on the fundamental and basic aspects of the matter, none of the learned counsel has disputed the position that the Act of 1971 as also the Amendment Act were not put to challenge by any person before the Court. As noticed, on the fundamental and basic aspects of the matter, none of the learned counsel has disputed the position that the Act of 1971 as also the Amendment Act were not put to challenge by any person before the Court. In the writ petition filed by the present appellants, even when the provisions of the Act of 1971 as also of the Amendment Act were placed before the learned Single Judge for consideration, it does not appear that any party to the litigation projected any ground for declaring the said provisions ultra vires the Constitution. In the given set of circumstances and the stand of the parties, in our view, the issues regarding validity of the provisions in question were not required to be gone into the writ petition filed by the present appellants. Secondly, if at all the writ Court entertained any doubt about the validity of the provisions in question, such an aspect could have only been drawn up in the form of issues for consideration of a Division Bench of the Court because, under the Rules of the High Court of Meghalaya, 2013, a petition questioning the validity of any Act, Rule or any provision thereof is required to be placed before a Division Bench. Moreover, the fact of the matter remains that the provisions as contained in the statutes in question have not been shown suffering from want of competence of the legislature or violation of any of the constitutional provision. The learned Single Judge has chosen to refer to Entry No.88 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. With great respect, the said entry, relating to "Duties in respect of succession of property other than agriculture land" has no co-relation with the enactment at hand. 18. We need not elaborate on several different aspects of the matter for the reason that during the course of submissions, it has been pointed out before us that the issue relating to regulation of transfer by the Act of 1971 was dealt with by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Deep Sharma and others v. State of Meghalaya and others: 2010 (2) GLT 726 and the appeal against the said decision is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears just and proper that the present matter is left at that only. Suffice it to observe for the present purpose that in the petition filed by the present appellants, any aspect relating to the validity of the Act of 1971 or the Amendment Act was not required to be gone into by the learned Single Judge and hence, the order impugned cannot be approved. 19. However, the present appeal cannot be concluded with mere disapproval of the order impugned for the reason that several such facts and circumstances have surfaced during the course of hearing of this appeal that it is rather necessary to issue further orders. It is noticed in this matter that the orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) and by the Board, on 07.08.2009 and 20.01.2010 respectively, proceed rather on assumptions and it does not appear that all the relevant contentious issues were duly taken note of and decided by the authorities concerned in accordance with law. Moreover, the order as said to have been passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) on 06.11.2004 in recall of the probate order also appears suffering from the shortcomings of want of substitution of the legal representative of the deceased non-applicant. In the overall circumstances of the case, it appears just and proper that after setting aside the orders in question, the proceedings be restored for reconsideration in accordance with law. Conclusion: 20. Accordingly and in view of the above, the order dated 31.07.2015 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is set aside. Further, the aforesaid order dated 20.01.2010 as passed by the Board as also the order dated 07.08.2009 as passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) are also set aside; and yet further, the aforesaid order dated 06.11.2014 as passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) is also set aside. 21. As a consequence, the application as filed by the predecessor of the present respondent No.1 for mutation shall stand restored for consideration by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) in accordance with law; and at the same time, the application as filed by the respondent No.2 for setting aside the order of probate shall also stand restored for afresh consideration by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) in accordance with law. 22. 22. This appeal, therefore, stands disposed of with the directions and requirements foregoing. The concerned authorities, while proceeding with the matters, shall issue notices to the concerned parties in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal Disposed Of.