Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961: ss.8, 10, 11, 21, 44B – Ceiling limits – Partition Deed dated 31.01.1970 (duly registered on 1.07.1970) executed between appellant, his wife, minor son and three minor daughters in respect of agricultural land of HUF – On 19.11.1976, 59 acres and 35 guntas of land of appellant declared surplus by SDO – Appeal filed by appellant, his wife, minor son and elder daughter – Two other minor daughters did not appeal being satisfied with the order of SDO since no part of land that devolved upon them by means of partition deed was declared surplus – State filed cross objections challenging the exclusion of land of the two daughters but did not implead them – Appellate authority allowed the objections holding that the partition deed though before the cut off date was against the principles of Hindu Law to the extent that it gave share to minor daughters in ancestral land – Whether the partition deed registered prior to cut-off date of 26.09.1970 was against the principles of Hindu Law to the extent it gave a share to minor daughters in the land and on that basis, was partition deed of no effect in law – Held: It is clear from the provisions of the 1961 Act that transfers or partitions of land made in anticipation of or in order to avoid or defeat the 1972 Amending Act were to be ignored in calculating ceiling limits – Under s.21, the Collector has to make a declaration as to entitlement of a person or family unit to hold within the ceiling area – Further, s.44B excludes pleaders from appearing on behalf of any party in any of the proceedings under the 1961 Act – This is for the reason that the Collector has to determine on the facts of each case, based on returns filed if any, as to what areas are to be excluded so far as determination of ceiling of a person or family unit is concerned – If it were to be held that the Collector could go into a trial as to genuineness of a particular partition deed, even though it is before the cut-off date, it would extend the legal fiction that is limited to transfers and partitions made after the cut-off date; and secondly, if a period even before the cut -off date can be considered, it would render the cut-off date otiose, as then in all cases the Collector could go into whether a particular transfer or partition has been entered into to avoid the effect of the 1972 Amendment Act, which is an enquiry restricted only to transfers and partitions which take place on or after 26.09.1970 upto the commencement date – Also, if the Collector were to substitute himself as a Civil Court deciding a Civil Suit, it would be absolutely essential for a person or family unit to engage a pleader of his choice to argue all the ramifications that his case may have, both in fact and in law – In fact, a Civil Court alone would have the jurisdiction to decide a question as to whether a partition deed entered into before the cut- off date is or is not sham, which would involve a declaration that the partition be declared void – The 1961 Act, therefore, bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only insofar as transfers and partitions are entered into on or after 26.09.1970 and before the commencement date, and not to transfers and partitions that take place before the cut-off date – This apart, once it is clear that the daughters are affected by virtue of the partition deed being held to be non est in law by the appellate tribunal, they ought to have been made parties to the appeal so that they could have made arguments in favour of the legal validity of the partition deed – This opportunity being denied to them is also fatal to the appellate authority’s order, which has, therefore, wrongly been upheld by the High Court – Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1972 – Hindu Law – Partition – Jurisdiction – Interpretation of statutes – Legal fiction – Party, impleadment of. Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961: ss.8, 10 and 11 – Transfer and partition after cut-off date – Jurisdiction of Collector to declare such transfer/partition sham for determining ceiling area – Held: It is not possible to state that wherever the expressions “transfer” and “partition” occur in ss.8,
10 and 11 of the 1961 Act, they must be understood as meaning transfers and partitions which are genuine – If the word “genuine” is added, it would amount to straining the language of these provisions and giving these provisions a construction which they cannot possibly bear - a construction that would go against the object of giving the Collector a limited jurisdiction to decide whether lands fall within the ceiling area, and in so doing, whether transfers and partitions between the cut-off date and commencement date should be “ignored” – The language of s.11 also leads to the conclusion that even in case of a partition that is made after the cut-off date and before the commencement date, the power of the Collector is not to declare such partition sham, and therefore void, which is for a Civil Court to do, but is only to ignore such partition for the purpose of calculating ceiling area – Land Laws – Interpretation of Statutes.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is clear from the provisions of the 1961 Act that transfers or partitions of land made in anticipation of or in order to avoid or defeat the 1972 Amending Act were to be ignored in calculating ceiling limits. This was so laid down by the Amending Act, 1975, which made 26.09.1970 the cut-off date after which such transfers became suspect. The 1961 Act does not in any manner declare such transfers to be void. However, if the contrary is proved on the facts of a given case, i.e. that a bonafide transfer or partition was in fact effected after the cut-off date, the person affected would be out of the clutches of Section 10 and/or Section 11 of the 1961 Act. In fact, what is important is the expression “shall accordingly be ignored”, which occurs in Section 11. [Para 16][933 A-D]
2. In terms of Section 13, where a person or member of a family unit either fails without reasonable cause to furnish a return, or furnishes a false return, he becomes liable to a penalty. A false return may be ignored by the Collector, requiring the person or family unit to submit a true and correct return complete in all particulars under Section 13(2). If thereafter, any such person or family unit fails to comply with the order within the time so granted, then, as a penalty for failure to furnish such return or a true and correct return complete in all particulars, the right, title and interest in the land held by him or the family unit as the case may be, in excess of the ceiling area, shall, subject to the provisions of Chapter 4, be forfeited to the State Government and vest in that Government. This Section gives a limited jurisdiction to the Collector to determine whether a true and correct return complete in all particulars has been given. Thus, a Collector would be well within his jurisdiction to state that a registered partition deed entered into after 26.09.1970 has been suppressed in the return furnished, as a result of which a penalty of INR 500 may be imposed, or excess land forfeited under Section 13(3). This jurisdiction is limited only to the factum of a partition deed having been suppressed from the return, and does not extend to conduct an enquiry as to whether a partition deed prior to 26.09.1970 is or is not a sham document. [Para 17][933 D-H; 934-A]
3. By Section 14 of the 1961 Act, the Collector is then to hold an enquiry either suo motu or otherwise, whether or not a return has been filed, in respect of every person or a family unit holding land in excess of the ceiling area. In so doing, Section 18 states that the Collector must consider several matters including, under sub-clause (b), whether any land transferred between 26.09.1970 and the commencement date (which is 02.10.1975), or any land partitioned after the cut-off date should either be considered or ignored in calculating the ceiling area as provided in Sections 10 and 11 of the 1961 Act. If Section 18(a) to (k) are seen, the evidence adduced at the hearing to be given to the holder and other persons interested in the land, only goes to calculating the total area of the land, including land held by the holder between 26.09.1970 and 02.10.1975 and lands that have been acquired after 02.10.1975. All the details mentioned in Section 18 only speak of ignoring certain transfers or partitions between the cut-off date and the commencement date, and otherwise would only go to the calculation of lands held by persons, and then applying the drill of the ceiling provisions of the 1961 Act. To state that Section 18(l) is a catch-all provision by which the Collector can determine whether a particular transfer or partition is a sham transaction, even if entered into before the cut-off date, is to go beyond the jurisdiction conferred on the Collector by the 1961 Act. In point of fact, even the language of Section 18(l) makes it clear that “any other matter” is circumscribed by the following words: “for the purpose of calculating the ceiling area, and delimiting any surplus land.” [Para 18][934 B-G]
4. Under Section 21, the Collector has to make a declaration as to entitlement of a person or family unit to hold within the ceiling area and area of land which is in excess of the ceiling area. Further, what is of importance is that Section 44B excludes pleaders from appearing on behalf of any party in any of the proceedings under the 1961 Act. This is for the reason that the Collector has to determine on the facts of each case, based on returns filed if any, as to what areas are to be excluded, and what areas of land are to be included so far as determination of ceiling of a person or family unit is concerned. If it were to be held that the Collector could go into a trial as to whether a particular partition deed is or is not sham, even though it is before the cutoff date, would have two effects that are not warranted in law first, it would extend the legal fiction that is limited to transfers and partitions made after the cut-off date; and second, if a period even before the cut-off date can be considered, it would render the cut-off date otiose, as then in all cases the Collector could go into whether a particular transfer or partition has been entered into to avoid the effect of the 1972 Amendment Act, which is an enquiry restricted only to transfers and partitions which take place on or after 26.09.1970 upto the commencement date. Also, if the Collector were to substitute himself as a Civil Court deciding a Civil Suit, it would be absolutely essential for a person or family unit to engage a pleader of his choice to argue all the ramifications that his case may have, both in fact and in law. In fact, a Civil Court alone would have the jurisdiction to decide a question as to whether a partition deed entered into before the cut-off date is or is not sham, which would involve a declaration that the partition be declared void. The 1961 Act therefore bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only insofar as transfers and partitions are entered into on or after 26.09.1970 and before the commencement date, and not to transfers and partitions that take place before the cutoff date. [Para 19][934 F-H; 935 A-E]
5. As a matter of fact, if the appeal provision, i.e. Section 33 of 1961 Act is to be seen, it is clear that appeals are provided to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against a declaration or part thereof made under Section 21 of the 1961 Act. The persons who would be aggrieved by such declarations can only be the person or family unit whose ceiling area is determined or the landlord to whom possession of land is to be restored or the right, title and interest of the person or family unit whose land is to be forfeited to the State Government. If at all a cross-objection can be taken by a respondent under Section 33(1A), it can only be a person or family unit or landlord spoken of in Section 21(1) of the 1961 Act. The State Government may perhaps file a cross-objection where it contends that land has wrongly not been forfeited to it. But such is not the case on the facts of this appeal. Thus, the State taking a cross objection on the facts of this case would itself be outside Section 33(1A). If at all the State can be said to be aggrieved by a declaration made under Section 21, a suo moto power of revision is given to the State Government under Section 45, which on the facts of a particular case may well be exercised. This apart, once it is clear that the elder daughters are affected by virtue of the partition deed being held to be non est in law by the appellate tribunal, they ought to have been made parties to the appeal so that they could have made arguments in favour of the legal validity of the partition deed. This opportunity being denied to them is also fatal to the appellate authority’s order, which has therefore wrongly been upheld by the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court. [Paras 20, 21][935 E-H;
936 A-B]
6. It is not possible to state that wherever the expressions “transfer” and “partition” occur in Sections 8, 10 and 11 of the 1961 Act, they must be understood as meaning transfers and partitions which are genuine. If the word “genuine” is added, it would amount to straining the language of these provisions and giving these provisions a construction which they cannot possibly bear – a construction that would go against the object of giving the Collector a limited jurisdiction to decide whether lands fall within the ceiling area, and in so doing, whether transfers and partitions between the cut-off date and commencement date should be “ignored”. The language of Section 11 also leads to the conclusion that even in case of a partition that is made after the cut-off date and before the commencement date, the power of the Collector is not to declare such partition sham, and therefore void, which is for a Civil Court to do, but is only to ignore such partition for the purpose of calculating ceiling area. [Para 28][940 F-H; 941 A-B]
Raghunath Laxman Wani and Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra (1971) 3 SCC 391 : [1972] 1 SCR 48; Jugal Kishore v. State of Maharashtra (1989) Supp. 1 SCC 589 : [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 270; State of
Maharashtra and Anr. v. Rattanlal (1993) 3 SCC 326 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 536 – distinguished.
Gurdit Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 260 : [1975] Suppl. SCR 453; Uttar Chand v. State of
Maharashtra (1980) 2 SCC 292 : [1980] 2 SCR 1048; Bhupendra Singh v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 1 SCC
277 : [1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 491 – referred to.
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.