Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
V.GOPAL REDDIAR (DEAD) BY L.R. AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/12/1994
BENCH:
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.:
1. Leave granted in C.A.Nos. 3039-40/95 S.L.P. (Civil)
Nos. 14935-14936 of 1994.
2. Substitution allowed in Civil Appeal Nos. 3774-3775 of
1992.
3. All these appeals raise a common question of law
relating to the interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as ’the Principal Act’) read with Tamil Nadu
Act. No. 17 of 1970 which is, the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
(Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970. The latter Act is
hereinafter referred to as ’the Reduction Act’. As the
facts are different in each group of appeals, they are dealt
with separately.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3774-3775 OF 1992
4. The deceased, V. Gopal Reddiar, the first appellant and
his wife, the second appellant in these appeals, held
agricultural lands in excess of the ceiling limit on
6.4.1960, which is the date of commencement of the Tamil
Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 1961.
Under Section 5 of the Principal Act, a ceiling of 30
standard acres is fixed on land holding in the case of a
family. An additional 10 standard acres is the celling of
land holding of Stridhana land.
5. Under Section 7 of the Principal Act, on and from
the date of commencement of the Act (i.e. on and from
6.4.1960) no person shall (except as otherwise provided in
this Act, but subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII)
hold land in excess of the ceiling area. Under Section 8,
within 90 days of the notified date, every person holding or
deemed to be -holding land in excess of the celling area is
required to furnish to the Authorised Officer a return in
respect of his land as specified in that Section. The
notified date under the Principal Act is 2.10.1962. Under
Section 10(1) the Authorised Officer is required to prepare
a draft statement in respect of a person’s holding in excess
of the ceiling area in the manner and on the basis specified
therein. This draft statement is required to be published.
A final statement has thereafter to be prepared and
published as set out in Sections 12 to 14.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
6. Under Section 23 of the Principal Act, if a person
holds land in excess of the ceiling limit, any sale of land,
effected by him after the notified date but before the
publication of the final statement cannot be taken into
account in considering his holding for the purposes of
fixing the ceiling. In the present case, the appellants
effected sale transactions in respect of certain lands held
by them between 3.7.1963 and 17.7.1964 i.e. after the
notified date under the Principal Act. There are five such
transactions of sale during this period.
7. On 28.7.1965, a draft statement was published in
respect of the appellants’ lands under Section IO(].) of the
Principal Act. The appellants objected to the draft state-
ment on 18.11.1965. While the proceedings were pending under
the Principal Act,
78
the Tamil Nadu land Reforms (Reduction of Ceillng on Land)
Act, 1970 came into force. The date of commencement of the
Reduction Act is 15.2.1970. Under the Reduction Act, the
ceiling on land in case of a family was reduced to 15
standard acres and the ceiling on Stridhana -land was
reduced to 5 standard acres. The "notified date" under the
Reduction Act was 2.10.1970.
8.It was contention of the appellants that the transactions
of a sale effected between 3.7.1963, and 17.7.1964 were
prior to the commencement of the Reduction Act, and should
be excluded from their holding for the purpose of
determining the now reduced ceiling limit under the pending
proceedings. This submission was rejected. An order was
passed on 20.11.1971 asking the appellants to surrender
30.30.standard acres from out of their holdings as surplus.
Being aggrieved by the said order the appellants filed an
appeal before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal con-
firmed the order of the Authorised Officer and dismissed the
appeal.
9.In revision, the high Court by its order dated 16.7.1976
directed a fresh enquiry to be held by the Authorised
Officer. The High Court said that under the Reduction Act
the notified date was 2.10.1970. It directed the Authorised
Officer to consider whether the sale transactions of the
appellants before this notified date were bona fide
transactions or not.
10.The Authorised Officer, by his order dated 25.9.1980,held
that the transactions of the sale after 6.4.1960 will have
to be ignored for the purpose of the pending proceedings
i.e. the lands forming the subject matter of these sales
shall be considered as a part of the appellants’ holding.
He determined the surplus land accordingly. The Land
Tribunal in appeal upheld the order of the Authorised
Officer. The revision petition of the appellants has been
dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 22nd of
November, 1.989. Hence the present appeals have been filed.
11.Now, in order to appreciate the contentions of both
sides, it is necessary to look at Chapter III of the
Principal Act. Chapter III of the Principal Act is entitled
"Ceiling on Future Acquisition and Restriction on Certain
Transfers". Sections 19 to 23 constitute this Chapter,
Under Section 19(1), on and after the notified date
(2.10.1962), no document relating (inter alia) to any
transfer of land by sale shall be registered unless a
declaration is made by the transferee before the registering
authority of the total extent of land held by him, as set
out therein.
12.Section 20(1) provides that if, as a result of any
transfer of land (inter alia) by sale, on or after the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
notified date, the land held by the transferee exceeds the
ceiling area, then the right, title or interest accrued in
his favour by virtue of such transfer in excess of the
ceiling area, shall be deemed to have been transferred to
the Government. Both these sections prescribe restrictions
qua a transferee after the notified date.
13. Under Section 22, where on or after the date of
commencement but before the notified date (i.e. from
6.4.1960 to 2.10.1962) any person has transferred any land
held. by him (inter alia) by sale, the Authorised Officer
may, after notice, on enquiry, declare the transfer to be
void if he finds that the transfer defeats any of the
79
provisions of this Act.
14. Section23 which is relevant for our purpose provides as
follows:-
"Subject to the provisions of section 20, for
the purpose of fixing, for the first time, the
ceiling area of any,person holding land on the
date of the commencement of this Act, in
excess of 30 standard acres, the authorised
officer shall not take into consideration--
(a) any transfer
(b) effected on or after the notified date
and before the date of the publication of the
final statement tinder Section 12, or 14."
Thus, Sections 22 and 23 place restrictions on transfer of
land qua a transferor. Any transfer made by a transferor
between 6.4.1960 and 2.10.1962 is liable to be declared void
if it defeats the Principal Act. Any transfer made after
2.10.1962 and before the final statement cannot be taken,
into account for determining the land holding of the
transferor, if he holds land in excess of the ceiling area.
The transactions of sale in the present case are not
affected by Section 22. Under Section 23, however, for the
purpose of determining the ceiling area of 30 standard acres
under the Principal Act, any sale transaction after the
notified date of 21.10.1962 but before the publication of
the final statement has to be ignored. Therefore, the
transactions of sale in the present case, which have taken
place after the notified date but before the final
statement, have to be ignored for the purpose of determining
the appellants ceiling limit under the Principal Act.
15. However; in the present case, the Reduction Act had
come into force before the publication of the final
statement. As a result of the Reduction Act, the Principal
Act was modified as set out in the said Reduction Act. As a
result, "the date of the commencement of this Act" as de-
fined in Section 3(11) of the Principal Act was changed to
15th of February, 1970 instead of 6th of April, 1960. By
reason of amendment of Section 3(3 1), the notified date"
became 2.10.1970. In Section 5 of the Principal Act, the
ceiling area of 30 standard acres was changed to 15 standard
acres and the Stridhana holding was changed from 10 standard
acres to 5 standard acres. We are not concerned with the
other changes in Section 5.
16. Section 23 of the Principal Act was amended by
insertion of words "after the date of the commencement of
this Act", after the words "for the first time"; and "30
standard acres v was substituted by " 1 5 standard acres".
17. The amended Section 2 reads thus:
"Subject to the provisions of Section 20, for
the purpose of fixing, for the first time,
after the commencement of this Act, the
ceiling area of any person holding land on the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
date of the commencement of this Act, in
excess of 15 standard acres, the Authorised
Officer shall not take into consideration -
(a) any transfer by sale ............ ;
(b) effected on or after the notified date
and before the date of the publication of the
final statement under Section 12 or 14."
It is contended by the appellants that since the notified
date now is 2.10.1970, trans-
80
actions of sale between 2.10.1970 and the date of the
publication of the final statement alone have to be ignored
for the purpose of determining the ceiling of 15 standard
acres under the amended Principal Act. Hence the
transactions of sale in the present case, which have taken
place period to 2.10.1970, cannot be ignored and -will have
to be taken into account to determine the holding of the
appellants on the date of the commencement of the Reduction
Act.
1,8. This submission ignores Section 3 of the Reduction Act
which is in the nature of Saving Section. It provides as
follows:-
"Section 3: (1) Subject to the provisions of
sub-section (2) any action taken (including
any order made, notification issued, decision
or direction given, proceeding taken,
liability or penalty incurred and punishment
awarded) under the provisions of the Principal
Act before the date of the publication of this
Act hi the Fort St. George Gazette, may be
continued or enforced after the said date in
accordance with the provisions of the
Principal Act as if this Act had not been
passed.
(2) Nothing in sub-Section (1) shall be
deemed to entitle any person whether or not
such person is a party to any proceeding
mentioned in sub-section (1), to hold after
the 15th day of February 1970, land in excess
of the ceiling area tinder the Principal Act
as modified by Section 2 and the provisions of
the Principal Act as modified by section 2
shall, after the said date, apply to such
person. "
Section 3(i) provides that any proceed in which has been
taken under the provisions of the Principal Act before the
publication of Reduction Act, may be continued in accordance
with the provisions of the Principal Act as if the Reduction
Act had not been passed. The proceeding for the de-
termination of ceiling under the Principal Act had commenced
in the present case in 1965. It had, however, not been
concluded when the Reduction Act came into force. Under
Section 3(1), therefore, this proceeding has to be continued
as if the Reduction Act had not been passed. Taken by
itself, therefore, under Section 3(1) the ceiling area of 30
standard acres would have to be determined under the
Principal Act as it originally stood. If so, the sale
transactions in question will not be considered for
determining the ceiling area prescribed under the unamended
Principal Act, they having taken place after 2.10.1962 and
before the publication of the final statement.
19.Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Reduction Act,
however, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in
subsection (1), no person shall be deemed to be entitled to
hold after 15th of February, 1970, land in excess of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
ceiling area under the Principal Act as modified by the
Reduction Act. It further provides that the provisions of
the Principal Act as modified by Section 2 of the Reduction
Act shall, after 15th of February 1970, apply to such a
person. Therefore, it is clear that despite Section 3(1)
the appellants cannot hold land in excess of the reduced
ceiling area after 15.2.1970. Their holding, determined
under Section 3(1), would have to be reduced further. How
should this be done?
20.It is submitted before us by the respondents that as a
result of Section 3(2) of the Reduction Act, pending
proceedings under the old Act have to be continued save and
except that the ceiling would be reduced. Hence
transactions of sale after
81
2.10.1962 which were required to be ignored under the
unamended Section 23 of the Principal Act would also have to
be ignored under the Principal Act as modified by the
Reduction Act in view of Section 3(1).
21.This submission ignores an important part of Section 3(2)
which prescribes that for the purpose of determining a
person’s reduced ceiling after 15th of February, 1970, the
provisions of the Principal Act as modified by Section 2 of
the Reduction Act, shall apply to a person against whom any
proceedings are pending as described under Section 3(1).
This means that under Section 3(2), for the purpose of
determining the reduced holding, the amended Section 23 will
have to be applied i.e. the notified date under the amended
Section 23 has now to be read as 2.10.1970 instead of
2.10.1962. For the purpose, therefore, of reducing the
holding further under Section 3(2), only sale transactions
between 2.10.1970 and the date of the final statement are
required to be ignored. Subsections (1),and (2) of Section
3 must be read harmoniously. In a case where a proceeding
under the Principal Act had commenced under the Principal
Act but had not concluded before tic commencement -of the
Reduction Act, the proceeding will have to be continued
under the unamended principal Act to arrive at the
permissible holding under the unamended Principal Act A
person, however cannot hold more than the reduced ceiling
area after the commencement of the Reduction Act. The
proceeding, therefore, will have to continue in order to
further determine the reduced holding under the modified
Principal Act. For the purpose of determining his final
holding under the modified Principal Act, the amended
Section 23 will have to be applied to the ceiling holding
determined under the original Principal Act. In the present
case, therefore, for the purpose of calculating the reduced
ceiling area sale transactions between the new notified date
and the date of the final statement alone should be ignored
(vide amended Section 23). Sale transactions prior to
15.2.1970 will have to be taken into account. Therefore,
for further reduction under Section 3(2) what will have to
be taken into account, will be the holding of the appellants
as determined under the Principal Act (Section 3(1)) less
any other reduction in their holding on account of sales,
transfers etc. prior to the commencement of the Reduction
Act. The existence of the words "and the provisions of the
Principal Act as modified by Section 2 shall after the said
date apply to such person" in Section 3(2) clearly indicate
that the further reduction of holding as per the Reduction
Act has to be done in accordance with the provisions of the
Principal Act read with the Reduction Act. Sub-section (2)
cannot be read as simply reducing the ceiling area in the
pending proceedings under the Principal Act. Subsection (2)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
clearly provides the method of thus reducing the ceiling
after 15th of February, 1970. This further reduction has to
be done in accordance with the provisions of the Principal
Act read with the Reduction Act.
22.Any pending proceeding, therefore under the Principal Act
will have to be continued and concluded in the aforesaid
manner by first calculating the ceiling area under the
Principal Act and then reducing it further to the ceiling
under the Reduction Act read with the Principal Act by
applying the provisions of the Principal Act as modified by
the Reduction Act; so
82
that a person does not hold land in excess of the ceiling
area prescribed under the Principal Act read with the
Reduction Act. The holding of the appellants, therefore, is
required to be redetermined in accordance with the
principles laid down by us hereinabove.
23.The appeal are accordingly partly allowed. The
proceedings are remanded to the Land Tribunal for
determination of the ceiling area of the appellants in the
manner described hereinabove. There will, however, be no
order as to costs.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4960-4965 OF 1994
24.These proceedings pertain to certain properties held by
one Papayee Ammal. Papayee Ammal enjoyed lands which she
had inherited as the heir of her husband and also as the
successor-in-interest of her sister Saradambal. There were
disputes between Papayee Ammal and one Victor Jagannathan,
the son of her husband’s sister, and his children in respect
of these lands. As a result, a family arrangement was
arrived at on 17.9.1959. Under the family arrangement,
certain specified properties were given to Papayee Ammal for
life and the remaining properties were given to Victor
Jagannathan and his children. After the death of Papayee
Ammal, the properties in which she had a life interest, were
to vest in the children of Victor Jagannathan absolutely.
Papayee Ammal, however, had a right to alienate her
properties in respect of which she had a life interest.
25.After this family arrangement was arrived at, Papayee
Ammal, between 1960 and 1962 alienated certain properties in
respect of which she had a life interest.
As a result, in 1964 suits were filed against her by Victor
Jagannathan and his children challenging the alienations
made by Papayee Ammal. These alienations, however, have
been ultimately upheld by the High Court.
26. Papayee Ammal died on 23.6.1965. Victor Jagannathan
also died on 5.7.1965. In 1966, -a draft statement under the
Principal Act was published in respect of the land holding
of Papayee Ammal since on the date of the commencement of
the Principal Act, Papayee Ammal was alive and held lands as
a limited owner. Proceedings were taken under the Principal
Act after bringing the heirs of Papayee Ammal on record.
Certain lands in Vellappakam Village so held by Papayee
Ammal belonging to her estate were declared as surplus.
27. Between 1. 1. 1979 and 27.1.1979 the appellants
purchased some of the lands in Vellappakam Village which
have been declared as surplus, from the children of Victor
Jagannathan. The final statement, however, in respect of
the holding of Papayee Ammal was published on 27.1.1983. The
appellants and others filed revision petitions under Section
82 before the Land Commissioner. The Land Commissioner by
his order dated 25.9.1984 held that there was no
irregularity in the determination of the holding of Papayee
Ammal and that the lands involved in the earlier sales made
by Papayee Ammal should be allowed to be retained within the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
ceiling limit of 30 standard acres as on 6.4.1960 and the
lands involved in the subsequent sale should be declared as
surplus.
28. The appellants filed writ petitions challenging the
order of the Land Commis-
83
sioner. These petitions were transferred to the Tamil Nadu
Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by
its order dated 17.9.1992 has held that lands held by
Papayee Ammal would attract the provisions of the Principal
Act. It has further held that there is nothing wrong in the
proceedings commencing after the death of Papayee Ammal.
The Tribunal has rejected the contention of the appellants
that since no proceedings were commenced during the life-
time of Papayee Ammal, lands had become vested in the
remaindermen and, therefore, the proceedings were without
jurisdiction. The Tribunal also held that the provisions of
the Principal Act alone will apply, notwithstanding the
coming into force of the Reduction Act. In this connection
the Tribunal has relied upon the provisions of Section 3(1)
of the Reduction Act referred to above.
29.In the present appeals it is this finding of the Tribunal
which is under challenge.
30.It is contended by the appellants that on account of the
death of Papayee Ammal in 1965 the properties vested in the
remaindermen before the commencement of the Reduction Act.
Hence the lands in question cannot be considered as holdings
of Papayee Ammal on the date of the commencement of the
Reduction Act. The proceedings, therefore, under the
Principal Act are bad in law and the properties in question
have been validly alienated in their favour by the heirs of
Papayee Ammal.
31.This contention has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal
under Section 3. Papayee Ammal was alive on the date of
commencement of the Principal Act and, therefore, her
holdings was required to be determined under the Principal
Act. The proceedings against the estate of the Papayee
Ammal were, therefore, rightly commenced under the Principal
Act after bringing her heirs on record. During the pendency
of these proceedings, the Reduction Act came into force. By
reason of Section 3(1) of the Reduction Act, these
proceedings for the purpose of determining the ceiling under
the Principal Act were required to be continued under the
Principal Act. However, in these proceedings, the reduced
ceiling was required to be determined under the provisions
of the Principal Act read with the Reduction Act. The
pending proceeding, therefore, must proceed to a conclusion
in the light of both sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3.
There is only one proceeding under both sub-sections. In
that proceeding, the permissible holding must be first
determined as per the Principal Act. This holding must,
thereafter, be further reduced as provided in Section 3(2)
by applying the Principal Act as modified by the Reduction
Act. Hence there is only one proceeding -- the one which is
commenced under the Principal Act. If it has not concluded
before 15th February, 1970, it is required to be continued
and completed in the above manner. Since the proceeding is
one and continuous, the death of Papayee Ammal during the
pendency of this proceeding does not result in the
termination of this proceeding. Section 3(2) merely
prescribes a reduced ceiling and the method of its
calculation. It does not contemplate commencement of a
fresh proceeding when the proceeding under the Principal Act
has not come to a conclusion.
32.The sale transactions in question which took place in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
January 1979 will clearly
84
have to be taken into account for the purpose of determining
the reduced holding of the estate of Papayee Ammal. Since
these sale transactions have, taken place after the new
notified date as per the Reduction Act and before the final
Statement, these cannot be excluded from the holding of
Papayee Ammal.
33. The ratio of the judgment of this Court in B.K. v.
Radhamani Ammal v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms,
Coimbatore (1985 (2) SCC 46) does not apply to the present
case. In that case the proceedings under the Principal Act
had come to an end. After the coming into force of the
Reduction Act, fresh proceedings were commenced under the
Principal Act as amended by the Reduction Act. In the
present case, fresh proceedings are not taken after
15.2.1970. The proceeding under the Principal Act had not
been concluded before the commencement of the Reduction Act.
It was, therefore, continued under the Principal Act under
Section 3(1) read with Section 3(2). It does not abate on
account of the death of Papayee Ammal during its pendency.
as the heirs and legal representatives of Papayee Ammal are
on record.
34.The appeal are accordingly dismissed. There will,
however, be no order as to costs.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3039-40 OF 1995 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)
Nos. 14935-36 of 1994)
35. In the present case, one Chellmani Ammal, the mother of
the appellant had filed a return under Section 8(1) of the
Principal Act in respect of lands held by her. She had
filed another return on behalf of the appellant, who is her
adopted son, and who was then a minor. As per Section 3(14)
of the said Principal Act their holdings were clubbed as one
unit. There were several proceedings adopted in connection
with clubbing of the two holdings by Chellamani Ammal and
the appellant with which we are not concerned. During the
pendency of these proceedings, the Reduction Act came into
force.
36. On 30.9.1970 the appellant made a Deed of Declaration
of Trust settling 14.93 acres in favour of E.R. Hindu
Elementary School, Trichy. On the same date Chellamani
Ammal also executed Deed of Declaration of Trust settling
31.41 acres of her land in favour of E.R.Hindu Elementary
School, Trichy. Both of them claimed that the land which
was the subject matter of the two trusts should be excluded
from their holdings under Section 2 1 -A of the Reduction
Act.
37. In this connection, Writ Petition Nos. 652 and 653 of
1977 were filed by the appellant and his mother before the
High Court of Madras. The High Court by its order dated
7.1.1980 set aside the orders of the Land Tribunal and
remanded both the matters to the Tribunal for fresh con-
sideration relating to the applicability of Section 21 -A of
the Principal Act read with the Reduction Act, to the
holdings in question. The Tribunal in turn remitted the
proceedings to the Authorised Officer for fresh disposal in
the light of the observations made by the High Court.
38. The Authorised Officer held that since the proceedings
had been initiated only under the Principal Act, they had to
be continued according to the provisions of the Principal
Act in view of 3(1) of the Reduction Act. He held that
Section 2 1 -A
85
which was incorporated in the Principal Act by the Reduction
Act, would not apply to these proceedings. These findings
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
were upheld by the Land Tribunal as also by the Tamil Nadu
Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal. Hence, the present
appeals by Special leave have been filed before us.
39. Section 21 -A has been inserted in the Principal Act by
the Reduction Act. The relevant provisions of Section 21 -A
arc as follows:
"’Section 21-A: Notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 22 or in any other
provision of this Act and in any other law for
the time being in force, where, after the date
of the commencement of this Act, but before
the notified date -
(a)..................
(b)..................
(c) any person has voluntarily transferred
any land-
(i) to any educational institution; or
(ii) hospital;
of a public nature solely for the purposes of
such institution or hospital such .....
transfer shall be valid
This Section overrides all other provisions of the Act
including Section 22. It will, therefore, override Section
3(1) of the Reduction Act also. Hence, as a result of Sec-
tion 21-A, if between 5.2.1970 and 2.10.1970 any land is
transferred voluntarily, inter alia, to any educational
institution, such a transfer shall be valid. The land so
transferred is, therefore, excluded from the holding of any
person even though the proceedings against him may have
commenced under the old (i.e. the Principal) Act. If the
proceedings had not concluded before the Reduction Act came
into force, the person can claim the benefit of Section 21
-A.
40.In the case of Susila Devi Ammal and Ors. v. State of
Madras (1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 462) the provisions of Section
21-A were construed by this Court. In that case,
proceedings under the Principal Act were pending. The High
Court had, in revision, held that there was a material
irregularity in the order in computing the holding which
needed to be corrected. These proceedings were pending when
Section 21A was enacted by the Reduction Act. This Court,
while interpreting Section 21-A, stated :-
"However, the said provision gave, what we may
call a transfer holiday, for a small period
from February 15, 1970 to October 2, 1970
providing that notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 22 or in any other
provision of this Act, and in any other law
for the time being in force, where any person
has effected by means of a registered
instrument a partition of his holding or part
thereof such partition shall be valid. Now
here the family which is a person under
Section 3(47) of the Act -by means of a
registered, partition deed effected a
partition on April 2 1970 within those crucial
dates. It is cant to notice that this
provision with its non-obstante clause has
asserted Supremacy over all other provisions
of the Act .... "
(emphasis supplied)
This Court held that Section 21-A would override the
provisions of Section 23. This ratio is directly applicable
to the present
86
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
case. Section 21-A will, therefore, apply to pending
proceedings under the Principal Act, notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 3(1) of the Reduction Act.
41. In this connection, a reference has also been made to
the case of M.K. Harihar Iyer v. Authorised Officer Land
Reforms, Tirunelveli (1990 (1) SCR 358). In that case
appellant-land-owner had land in excess of 30 standard acres
as on 6.4.1960. He filed a return as required by the Princi-
pal Act an an enquiry was initiated by the Authorised
Officer. Under the said Act several objections raised by
the appellant were rejected and the Authorised Officer
determined the surplus holding of the appellant. There were
various proceedings in connection with this finding of the
enquiry officer which ultimately went in revision before the
High Court. One of the pleas raised before the High Court
was in connection with certain documents executed by the
appellant between 15th of February, 1970 and 2nd of October,
1970. Section 21-A came to be incorporated in the Principal
Act by reason of the Reduction Act. The High Court held
that provisions of Section 21-A would have to be applied for
determining the ceiling area. It further held that if the
documents executed were found to be in order to defeat the
provisions of the Act, the transactions may be declared void
under Section 22 of the Act. This finding of the High Court
was challenged before this Court. This Court considered the
provisions of Section 21-A and Section 22 of the principal
Act as amended by the Reduction Act, and held that Section
21 -A, which begins with the words - "notwithstanding
anything contained in Section 22" - clearly overrides
Section 22. Hence transactions covered by Section 21-A
cannot be inquired into under Section 22. In view of the
overriding effect of Section 21-A over not only Section 22,
but any other provision of law, it must override Section
3(1).
42. Our attention was also drawn to a decision of this
Court in the case of B.K V. Radhamani Ammal (supra). The
ratio of this case, however, will not apply here since in
that case, the proceedings under the Principal Act had
already concluded long before the Reduction Act came into
operation and the proceedings which were considered by this
Court in that case were fresh proceedings initiated under
the Principal Act read with the Reduction Act.
43. In the present case, the benefit of Section 21-A is
available to the appellant in respect of the Deeds of Trust
executed on 30.9.1970. The holding of the appellant,
therefore, has to be calculated after applying the
provisions of Section 21 -A.
44. The appeals are accordingly allowed to this extent.
The matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal for a fresh
determination in the light of this judgment. ’Mere will,
however, be no order as to costs.
45. Looking to the circumstances the Land Tribunal is
directed to dispose of all these matters expeditiously,
preferably within four months.
87