Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF GUJARAT
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NARGES K. PANTHAKY
DATE OF JUDGMENT02/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 739 1996 SCC (1) 298
JT 1995 (9) 294 1995 SCALE (6)602
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The proceedings were initiated under the Gujarat
Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 [for short, "the Act"]
to determine the ceiling area and the surplus area. The
respondent claimed that under an agreement dated October 14,
1969, thirty acres of land had been transferred in favour of
the respondent’s mother which was duly recognised by
mutation proceedings dated 15.9.1971. The question is
whether it is to defeat the provisions of the Act. Sub-
section (1) of Section 8 of the Act reads thus :
"8. Transfere or partitions made after
15th January 1959 but before
commencement of this Act. - (1) Where
after 15th day of January, 1959 but
before the commencement of this Act or
after 24th day of January, 1971, but
before the specified date, any person
has transferred whether by sale, gift,
mortgage, with possession, exchange
lease, surrender or otherwise or
partitioned any land held by him, then
notwithstanding anything contained in
any law for the time being in force such
transfer or partition shall, unless it
is proved to the contrary, be deemed to
have been made in anticipation in order
to defeat the object of this Act. Where
such transfer or partition was made
after 15th day of January 1959 but
before the commencement of this Act or
in order to defeat the object of the
Amending Act of 1972 where such transfer
was made after 24th day of January, 1971
but before the specified date."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
A reading thereof would clearly indicate that
notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
being in force such transfer or partition shall, unless it
is proved to the contrary, be deemed to have been made in
anticipation in order to defeat the object of the Act. The
question is whether this agreement is a transfer. Shri R.P.
Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent,
has taken us through the agreement which had specifically
stated that right, title and interest of the land was
conferred for the first time in favour of the respondent
under that document. Thereby, the right, title and interest
held by the owner of the land is sought to be extinguished.
In turn it is sought to be conferred in favour of the
respondent for the first time under the document. By
operation of Section 17 of the Registration Act, it is a
compulsorily registerable document. Since it has not been
registered, the owner has not been divested of the right,
title and interest in the land and thus continued to be the
owner of the land under the Act.
The authorities and the High Court have not
appropriately considered this question. The appeal is
allowed accordingly and the matter is remitted to the
ceiling authority to compute the ceiling area keeping in
view what has been held in this order. The authorities would
take further action according to law. No costs.