Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. This is the problem which has got topical importance until ceiling legislation is fully implemented and enforced. It is necessary to examine the material provisions of the two enactments which bear on this question. Section 4 of the Prohibition of Alienation Act specifies ten hectares of dry land as the specified limit of holding for the purpose of Section 5. Section 5, in its turn, imposes prohibition of alienation by persons who have holdings in excess of the specified limit as prescribed under Section 4 either by way of sale, lease for a period exceeding six years, gift exchange etc. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 further declares any alienation made or partition effected or trust created in contravention of the section as limited to voluntary alienation made or partition effected or trust created in contravention of the Section as null and void. This prohibition is not limited to voluntary alienations by holders of land. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 extends the effect of Sub-section (1) and (2) "to any transaction of the nature referred to therein in execution of a decree or order of a civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority." It is thus plain that even Court sales of agricultural land, which form part of a holding in excess of the specified limit, are declared null and void. Section 9 lays down that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court, tribunal or other authority. Therefore, the provisions of the Prohibition of Alienation Act have an overriding force and prevail over other enactments if there is inconsistency between it and them.

"If the Tribunal decides that any transfer or creation of trust had been effected in anticipation of, and with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of, any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings or that any alienation made or partition effected or trusted created is null and void and if as a result of such transfer, alienation or creation of trust, the holding of the person or the family unit, that remains on the notified date does not exceed the extent of land that he or the family unit is liable to surrender, then, the Tribunal shall treat the entire holding thus left over as the extent of land to be surrendered under the provisions of this Act by the person or the family unit, as the case may be.

16. Again the Ceiling law in Sub-section (7) of Section 7 provides that if any question arises as to whether any transfer made on or after 2-5-1972 is null and void, the question shall be determined by the Tribunal which shall be constituted under the Act. It is true that by virtue of the proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 7 an alienee, in whose favour transfer had been made in contravention of the Prohibition of Alienation Act, is liable to surrender the balance of the extent of land, if the total extent of land to be surrendered was not available with the transferor. But this is a provision which comes into play only after the Tribunal decides the question whether an alienation is null and void. That is specifically stated in the beginning of Sub-section (8) itself. It is also significant that the proviso to sub-s (8) imposes the liability to surrender land only on alienees who are in possession of such holdings. That means it postulates only cases where possession had already been given to the alienee. The Ceiling law provides for determination of ceiling area, surrender of excess lands, vesting of land surrendered, and also for prohibition of alienation of holdings after the notified date. Section 17 further declares that any alienation made or partition effected or trust created in contravention of that Section shall be null and void and any conversion so made shall be disregarded. Section 18 provides for declaration of future acquisitions as well. Thus the intendment of the Legislature in making these two laws, as can be gathered from the historical background and from reading the statutes as a whole is clear. It lays down that transfers made in contravention of the Prohibition of Alienation Act are totally ineffective. It is to convey that meaning the expression "null and void" is used in respect of them, as distinct from the other category of transfers. When we bear in mind that the prohibition is extended even to transfers that have been effected in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court, the purpose for which the law is made is very clear. Further, overriding effect has been given to these laws, Otherwise, if people go on carrying on transactions permitted under the other laws, like the Transfer of Property Act, the Contract Act, Civil Procedure Code etc., they are likely to defeat the very purpose for which the Land Reforms Acts are made. If Sri Subbarayan's limited construction of the words "null and void" were to be accepted, it would lead to the result that though the Ceiling laws have been made and are in force, all transactions though contrary to them, dealing with lands can be carried on. That is the very danger which the legislation has sought to avoid and has, therefore, declared transfers in contravention of the Prohibition of Alienation Act as null and void. So, the expression "null and void" used in these two enactments is to make totally ineffective all transfers made in contravention thereof. It is not possible to give any restricted or limited meaning to it.