Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"For the purpose of determining the surplus area under this Act, a judgment, decree or order by a Court or other authority, obtained after the appointed day and having the effect of diminishing the surplus area shall be ignored."

Shri Bhandari submitted that it was beyond the competence of the Legislature to declare the decision of a Court of law to be void or of no effect as that would encroach upon the judicial function which under our Constitution, the Legislature is barred from performing. He relied on the well-known decisions of Janapada Sabha Chhindwara v. C. P. Syndicate, AIR 1971 SC 57; State of Tamil Nadu v. Ray-appa, AIR 1971 SC 231 and Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299. The principle enunciated is well established but it has no application in the present case. Section 12 (4) does not purport to set aside or reverse any decision of a Court. It does not purport to declare a decision to be null and void. All that it does is to declare that a decree having the effect of reducing the surplus area of- a person shall be ignored if made after the appointed day. Just as a transfer inter vivos which is not bona fide has to be ignored for the purpose of determining the surplus area, it is enacted that a decision having the effect of reducing the surplus area should also be ignored. The Legislature has not provided for any saving in favour of decrees obtained bona fide as distinguished from collusive decrees for the simple reason that it would be inappropriate for revenue authorities to go into the question whether the decree of a Civil Court is collusive. The only effect of Section 12 (4) is that a decree obtained after the appointed day cannot be taken into account in determining the surplus area of a person. Section 12 (4) does not affect the validity of the decision in any other manner. The rights of persons who are parties to the decision such as they are, remain unaffected inter se.