Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition concerning agricultural land under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The third respondent, a tenure-holder, held agricultural land in Village Gumsani and Village Bichpuri. On 10 May 1974, she transferred 64 bighas in Village Gumsani to appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and 64 bighas in Village Bichpuri to the fourth appellant by registered sale deeds. After a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, the prescribed authority did not accept these transfers as valid. Appeals against that decision were dismissed, and the special leave petition filed by the appellants before the Supreme Court was dismissed with a direction that the prescribed authority should decide which land should be surrendered after hearing the tenure-holder and the transferee, in accordance with Section 12-A of the Act and the agreement and sale deed. The third respondent then elected to surrender the land transferred to the appellants. The appellants objected, but the prescribed authority overruled their objection. A ceiling appeal filed by the appellants was allowed by the Additional District Judge. Against that order, the third respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, which set aside the Additional District Judge's order, leading to the present appeal. The central legal issue was whether Section 12-A proviso (d) of the Act required the surplus land to be determined excluding land that was the subject of transfer to the appellants when those transfers had been held void. Appellants argued that proviso (d) mandated that surplus land should, as far as possible, be land other than land which was the subject of transfer, and they relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ravindra Singh v. Phool Singh & Anr., (1995) 1 SCC 251. That judgment held that a combined reading of Section 5(6) and clause (d) of the proviso to Section 12-A shows that any transfer made after 24.1.1971 shall be ignored and such transferred land shall be included in the holding of the transferor, except where the transfer is saved by the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 5. The Supreme Court, however, distinguished the present case by pointing out that the provisions of Section 12-A and clause (d) of its proviso apply only to transfers which have not been found to be bad in law. In the instant case, the transfers were held to be void, and that finding had become final. The Court held that since there was no transfer in the eye of the law, there was no occasion to apply Section 12-A and clause (d) of the proviso. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Ceiling - Transfer During Ceiling Proceedings - Void Transfer and Applicability of Section 12-A Proviso (d) - Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, Sections 5(6), 5(8), 12-A proviso (d) - Tenure-holder transferred 64 bighas each to appellants by registered sale deeds dated 10 May 1974 while ceiling proceedings were pending; prescribed authority declared transfers void and appeals were dismissed, becoming final. Supreme Court held that Section 12-A proviso (d) applies only to transfers not found bad in law; since transfers were void, there was no transfer in the eye of law and no occasion to apply Section 12-A. Held appeal dismissed with no order as to costs (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 12-A proviso (d) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 applies to transfers held void, and whether the tenure-holder could surrender transferred land as surplus
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the transfers by the tenure-holder to the appellants were held void and that finding became final, there was no transfer in the eye of law, and therefore no occasion to apply Section 12-A and clause (d) of its proviso. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Transfers declared void under Section 5(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act
- 1960 have no legal effect
- Section 12-A proviso (d) applies only to valid transfers
- a combined reading of Section 5(6) and proviso (d) requires ignoring transfers made after 24.1.1971 unless saved by the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 5
- void transfer is no transfer in the eye of law
