Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Mr. Sarkar appearing for the plaintiff-Trust, however, contended in reply that the provisions of Sections 63 and 64 of the Tenancy Act, in the first instance, have to be examined and understood in the light of the provisions of Section 84-A of the Tenancy Act. He says that though under both the Sections 63 and 64 the transfer which was effected by Kargaonkare, by execution of the gift-deed, dated 16-7-1951 was illegal and void initially, the illegality disappeared by virtue of the provisions of Section 84-A of the Tenancy Act. The said Section 84-A provides that if a transferee, such as the plaintiff-Trust, pays a sum of Rs. 100/- as penalty to the Government, the Mamlatdar shall declare that the transfer is not invalid. He also relied on the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 84-A which provides that if the transferee does not pay the amount within the prescribed period, the transfer shall be declared by the Mamhitdar to be invalid and thereupon the provisions of Sub-sections (3) to (5) of Section 84-C shall apply. Under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act, what is provided is that upon such transfer being declared invalid the land shall vest in the State Government. Mr. Sarkar ingeniously contends that since no such order has been passed by the Mamlaldar declaring the transfer to be invalid, it must be assumed that the transfer is not invalid. He further contends that from the very fact thai transfer has not been declared invalid, it must be assumed or inferred that the requisite amount of Rs. 100/- has been paid by the plaintiff-Trust to the Government, within the prescribed period. Incidentally, it may be noted that the said period is prescribed by Rule 49-A of the Rules framed under the Tenancy Act which provides that the penalty should be paid on or before 31st March, 1965.