Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973: s.15 – Power to reopen cases – Limitation period – Relevant dates for determination of issue of limitation is the date of order sought to be reopened and the date of issuance of show-cause notice under s.15 of the Ceiling Act of 1973.
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – ss.30C, 30D, 30DD – Ceiling limit – Appellant was owner of 254.2 bighas of land – On 19.12.1963, he gifted away 127.1 bighas of land to his son and thereafter he was left with 17.25 standard acres of land – Proceeding was initiated under the ceiling law but same was dropped on 14.04.1972 with observation that amendment of s.30DD of the Act, 1955 was effective from 31.12.1969 and since the gift deed was executed before the said amendment, the said transfer was valid – By notice dated 15.03.1982, the Revenue Ceiling Department reopened the case of the appellant – Authorities held that the appellant was holding land over and above the ceiling limit – High Court, while passing the impugned order, held the registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963 to be invalid on the basis that it did not meet the requirements as provided under s.122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – High Court observed that gift deed did not show acceptance of gift by the donee, rather it seemed that donee was even unaware of the gift – High Court held that appellant was holding 4.5 standard acres of land in excess of ceiling limit – Aggrieved land owner filed instant appeal – Held: The recitals in the gift deed indicated that donor intended to part with ownership and possession immediately after the execution of the gift deed – Mutation entry in the Revenue Record reflected that half portion of appellant’s land was bestowed as a gift by him to his son through a registered instrument of gift – Even in the statement of the appellant, he has stated that the transferee-son was living separately and was cultivating the said gifted property and that he was in possession of an ox and equipments for ploughing and agriculture – These facts were reiterated by the transferee also in his statement – The statements of transferor and the transferee clearly indicated that the transferee had the equipment and skills and was sustaining himself as an agriculturalist – Lastly, the said transfer was executed way before the cut-off date stipulated under s.30DD i.e. 31.12.1969 – Therefore, the registered gift deed was a bona fide transfer squarely covered within the ambits of s.30DD, which intended to protect the rights of agriculturalists – The transfer of the land being valid under s.30DD, the ceiling area of the appellant fell within the ceiling limit as provided under s.30C – Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: ss.122, 123 – Whether the registered gift deed executed by appellant was valid in the eyes of law – Held: For a gift to be valid, it must be gratuitous in nature and must be made voluntarily – The said giving away implies a complete dispossession of the ownership in the property by the donor – Acceptance of a gift by the donee can be done anytime during the lifetime of the donor – Act of receiving willingly, acceptance can be inferred by the implied conduct of the donee – The recitals in the gift deed indicated that donor intended to part with ownership and possession immediately after the execution of the gift deed – Mutation Record clearly reflected that half portion of appellant’s land was bestowed as a gift by him to his son through a registered instrument of gift – Furthermore, the statement rendered by the appellant before the Additional District Magistrate indicated that the donee was already a major at the time of the execution of the gift deed and after execution of the gift deed the donee started cultivating on the same – This statement of the appellant was completely supported by the statement made by the donee before the Additional District Magistrate in which donee had stated that, as he did not get along with his step-mother, he started living separately and the land was transferred to him by virtue of gift deed was under his possession and he was cultivating the same – Therefore, these circumstances clearly indicated that there was an acceptance of the gift by the donee during the lifetime of the donor – Respondents failed to bring on record any evidence to rebut the fact that the donee was in enjoyment of the property – In light of the same, the Single Judge Bench took a plausible view that, it was a transfer between a father and a son and there was a valid acceptance of the gift when the donee-son started living separately – Lastly, since it was registered deed bearing signature of the donor and attested by two witnesses, the requirements under s.123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were satisfied – Gift deed – Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 – Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 – s.6 – Applicability of – Held: s.6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 declares that every transfer of land including by way of gift, made on or after 26-09-1970 and before 01-01-1973, shall be deemed to have been made to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act of 1973 – In the instant case, the gift deed was executed on 19-12-1963, that is much before 26-09-1970 – Therefore, s.6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 does not affect the transfer of land by the appellant-donor in favour of the donee-son – Also, there is no finding that the gift deed in this case was actuated upon any extraneous consideration – Hence, it constituted a bona fide transfer which are exempted from the rigors of s.6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973. Words and Phrases: Word ‘acceptance’ – Meaning of.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Section 15 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 confers upon the State Government the power to re-open the cases, if it is satisfied that the earlier order was in contravention with the provisions of the Act and is prejudicial to the State interest. The said direction to re-open cases must be preceded by a showcause notice served upon the person concerned. However, the proviso clause states that no notice can be issued after the expiry of five years from the date of the final order sought to be reopened or after the expiry of 30th June 1979, whichever is later. Therefore, the relevant dates for determination of the issue of limitation is the date of order sought to be reopened and the date of issuance of show-cause notice under Section 15 of the Ceiling Act of 1973. The respondents brought to notice the xerox copy of the Notice dated 20.11.1976 issued by Deputy Government Secretary, Revenue (Billing), Rajasthan. The aforesaid notice was sent to the appellant on 20.11.1976, that is within five years of the earlier order dated 15.04.1972. Further, the notice also satisfied the requirements as provided under Section 15 of the Ceiling Act of 1973, and hence was valid in the eyes of law. The case was, thus, re-opened within the time period stipulated under Section 15 of the Ceiling Act of 1973. [Paras 13, 14, 15, 16][855C-H]
2.1 Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that for a gift to be valid, it must be gratuitous in nature and must be made voluntarily. The said giving away implies a complete dispossession of the ownership in the property by the donor. Acceptance of a gift by the donee can be done anytime during the lifetime of the donor. Section 123 provides that for a gift of immovable property to be valid, the transfer must be effectuated by means of a registered instrument bearing the signature of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. [Paras 20, 21][856-G-H; 857-A]
Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranjivandas
Maganlal Thakker (1997) 2 SCC 255 : [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 780 – referred to.
2.2 Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 neither defines acceptance, nor does it prescribe any particular mode for accepting the gift. The word acceptance is defined as “the receipt of a thing offered by another with an intention to retain it, as acceptance of a gift.”The said fact can be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances such as taking into possession the property by the donee or by being in the possession of the gift deed itself. The only requirement stipulated here is that, the acceptance of the gift must be effectuated within the lifetime of the donor itself. Hence, being an act of receiving willingly, acceptance can be inferred by the implied conduct of the donee. [Paras 24-27][857-F-H; 858-A]
Asokan v. Lakshmikutty (2007) 13 SCC 210 – referred to.
Ramanatha P. Aiyar: The Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., page
19 – referred to.
2.3 The recitals in the gift deed indicated that donor intended to part with ownership and possession immediately after the execution of the gift deed. The Mutation entry in the Revenue Record clearly reflects that half portion of appellant’s land was bestowed as a gift by the appellant to his son through a registered instrument of gift dated 19.12.1963. Furthermore, the statement dated 31.08.1984, rendered by the appellant-donor before the Court of Additional District Magistrate indicates that the donee was already a major at the time of the execution of the gift deed. He further stated that after execution of the gift deed the donee started cultivating on the same. This statement of the appellantdonor is completely supported by the statement made by the donee before the Court of Additional District Magistrate. Therein, the donee clearly stated that, as he did not get along with his step-mother, he started living separately and the land was transferred to him by virtue of gift deed was under his possession and he was cultivating the same. Therefore, these circumstances clearly indicate that there was an acceptance of the gift by the donee during the lifetime of the donor. [Paras 28-31][858-G-H; 859-A-D]
2.4 The respondents failed to bring on record any evidence to rebut the fact that the donee was in enjoyment of the property. In light of the same, the Single Judge Bench took a plausible view that, it was a transfer between a father and a son and there was a valid acceptance of the gift when the donee-son started living separately. Lastly, it ought to be noted that apart from the point of acceptance by the donee as held above since the deed is registered, bears the signature of the donor and has been attested by two witnesses, the requirements under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 have been satisfied. [Para 33][859E-G]
3.1 Section 30C provides that for a family consisting of five or less members, the ceiling area would be thirty standard acres. When a family exceeds five members, five acres of ceiling area shall be extended for every additional member, however, such area cannot extend beyond sixty standard acres. The appellant admittedly was having a family of less than five members and was originally holding around 34.4 standard acres. Subsequently, by virtue of registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963, the appellant had transferred around 17.25 standard acres to his son. [Paras 35, 38][860-C; 862-B-C]
3.2 Section 30D provides that any transfer, on or after 25.02.1958, other than the ones provided in sub-section 1(i) and 1(ii) shall be deemed to have been entered to defeat the purpose of Ceiling Act. Such transactions were declared to be void. The aforesaid two exceptions being transfer by partition and transfer to a landless person. However, Section 30DD provides further exceptions to Section 30D as it recognizes certain transfer after the cut-off date provided under Section 30D. Section 30DD recognizes transfers of area up to 30 standard acres made in favour of an agriculturalist, his son or brother who are capable of doing agriculture and also intend to take up agriculture as a profession. However, such transfer must have been made before 31.12.1969 and the transferee must have attained the age of majority on or before the aforesaid date. [Paras 39 and 40][862C-E]
3.3 The legislature has carved out two separate categories of lands, one which is includible and other which is outside the purview of ceiling laws. Once such a classification has been made, with there being no challenge to its vires, it is the solemn duty of every authority to give full effect to the same, in both letter and spirit. Although, it is possible that there can be a voluntary transfer which would meet the qualifications of both Sections 30D and Section 30DD, however, it is significant to note that Section 30DD opens up with a non-obstante clause with overriding effect on Section 30D, as a result of which, any land included within its purview would be protected from the rigors of Section 30D of the Tenancy Act of 1955. Therefore, if the appellant succeed in its endeavor to establish that the transfer was covered under Section 30DD of the Tenancy Act of 1955, then such transferred land has to be exempted from computation of confiscable land, irrespective of the fact that it falls within the ceiling limit as prescribed under Section 30D of the Tenancy Act of 1955. [Para 43][863-B-D]
3.4 Another significant piece of evidence is the statement of the transferor-appellant dated 31.08.1984, wherein he has stated that the transferee-son was living separately and was cultivating the aforesaid gifted property. It is also mentioned that the transferee is in possession of an ox and equipments for ploughing and agriculture. The aforesaid facts have been reiterated by the transferee as well vide his statement dated 15.12.1988, wherein he has clearly stated that, he is in independent possession of the gifted property and has been cultivating the said land. The aforesaid pieces of evidence clearly indicate that due to certain family issues, the appellant and his son were living separately. During such separation, when the transferee-son had already attained the age of majority, the appellant-owner of the land, who was an agriculturalist himself, transferred the aforesaid land in favour of his son, so as to enable him to cultivate the same. The statements of transferor and the transferee clearly indicate that the transferee had the equipment and skills and was sustaining himself as an agriculturalist. [Paras 44, 45][863-E-G]
3.5 Lastly, it must be taken into consideration that, the aforesaid transfer was executed way before the cut-off date stipulated under Section 30DD i.e. 31.12.1969. Therefore, the registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963 was a bona fide transfer squarely covered within the ambits of Section 30DD, which intended to protect the rights of agriculturalists. The transfer of the land being valid under Section 30DD of the Tenancy Act of 1955, the ceiling area of the appellant falls within the ceiling limit as provided under Section 30C. [Paras 46, 47][863-H; 864-A-C]
3.6 There is no gainsaying that Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 also does not advance the case of the State. Firstly, the repeal of Chapter III-B of the Tenancy Act of 1955 through Section
40 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 is not retrospective. Hence, the provisions of the Ceiling Act of 1973 are not attracted in the present case as the case was re-opened and decided under the provisions of the of Tenancy Act of 1955. Secondly, Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 declares that every transfer of land including by way of gift, made on or after 26-09-1970 and before 01-01-1973, shall be deemed to have been made to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act of 1973. In the instant case, the gift deed was executed on 19-12-1963, that is much before 26-091970. Therefore also, Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973 does not affect the transfer of land by the appellant-donor in favour of the donee-son. Thirdly, there is no finding that the gift deed in the present case was actuated upon any extraneous consideration. Hence, it constitutes a bona fide transfer which are exempted from the rigors of Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of 1973. [Para 48][864-C-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.