Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This gave an occasion to them to approach the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants, however, raised a number of pleas to contend that their claim had wrongly been negatived being bonafide purchasers of surplus area measuring 75.51 acres by an auction sale and, hence they, were entitled to the protection of law. (In fact, it was their father who was the auction-purchaser but on his demise they had been projecting his case as his legal representatives).
The State, on the other hand, questioned the auction sale terming it as neither being a bona-fide transaction nor for adequate consideration, giving justification to the Ceiling Authorities to ignore the same. It was highlighted that since the proceedings for determination of surplus area were pending from 10-10-1974 till 22-8-1984, the auction sale effected within that period had to be treated as Void' conferring no right on the appellants.
Section 5 of the Ceiling Act, insofar as it is relevant for our purposes, provides:

The High Court in its judgment under appeal, on applying the abovesaid provisions, arrived at a decision that the appellants had no case since they had purchased the area in an auction-sale in the year 1975, sale of which was confirmed in 1977, after the date of the commencement of the Act, i.e., 8-6-1973, when the disputed area belonged to Jagdish Chander, the tenure holder. The High Court viewed that the Ceiling Authorities were fully justified in ignoring the auction sale and treating the auctioned area as holding of the tenure-holder while determining his surplus area. Notice was found to have been given to the son of the tenure-holder, even though residing in Sweden at that time. The High Court also opined the sale would be Void' in the facts and circumstances, even though involuntary and being an auction-sale. Besides, the High Court was also of the view that the appellants had failed to produce relevant documents to demonstrate that valid decrees had been passed in good faith against the tenure-holder and that the auction-sale was held in good faith and was valid and legal, removing the suspicion of a large area of 75.51 acres being sold for just a sum of Rs. 10,000 only. The transaction, as such, was viewed by the High Court as not bona fide or for adequate consideration.

The Ceiling Act came as a measure to further promote agrarian reforms and to curtail the size of the land holdings to 7.5 hectares per family. The provisions of the ceiling Act enjoy the protection of the 9th Schedule to the Constitution. In reading the provisions thereof one has to attune oneself with the purposes of the Act. As it is, Section 5 imposes a ceiling on land holdings and has taken care to plug all escape routes by which the measure of the holding could, by patent or latent devices, be diminished. The courts, and especially the officers in the hierarchy, have to have the necessary insight to see that the purposes of the Ceiling Act are not frustrated. The view of the courts would necessarily have to bear that slant in giving full effect to the provisions of the Act. As reproduced above, Section 5 lays down the method of determination of the ceiling area. It is to be computed as the holding stood on 24.1.71. All transfers effected thereafter, would have to be ignored  not taken into account. Exceptions thereto are provided in the proviso and the explanations. A transfer proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument not being a benami transaction or for immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family is excepted from the purview under sub-section 6. Then again sub-section 8 which starts with a non-obstante clause, inter alia, provides that "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6), no tenure-holder shall transfer any land held by him during the continuance of proceedings for determination of surplus land in relation to such tenure-holder and every transfer made in contravention of this sub section shall be void". The Explanation thereto gives the duration during which proceedings can be said to have continued for determination of surplus area. Undeniably, had the transfer of 75,51 acres been made by the tenure-holder himself, sub-sections (1), (6) & (8) of Section 5 would warrant ignoring thereof and not being taken into account. Further, if that transfer was within the time during the continuance of the proceedings for determination of surplus land then it would be void altogether. This being the scheme of the Act, principly it would not make any difference whether the sale is voluntary or involuntary, for in either way the surplus area would get diminished and susceptible to the adoption of devices so as to diminish the extent of surplus area, expected to be reaped in the measure of agrarian reforms. The High Court was, thus, not wrong in trying to discover and then finally determine that in the absence of full particulars regarding the auction- sale, it was difficult to hold that the auction-sale happened to be bona fide and for adequate consideration or otherwise valid. The appellants themselves have produced before us the copies of the judgments/decrees of the Civil Court. They are, as said before, for paltry sums of money & basically on compromise or consent. Significantly, they date back to the year 1972 when agrarian reforms throughout India w.e.f. 24.1.71 was a talk of the times, in media, Press and policy statement of the government of the time. Those amounts were not such which the judgment-debtor could not pay off and had to let auction take place of such a large chunk of land of 75.51 acres to be purchased by the decree-holders themselves for a paltry sum of Rs. 10,000 only, even if the tenure-holder were to be believed that the area was unirrigated, though not holding so. That the auction-sale took place at a time when the surplus area proceedings were pending, further goes to show that the transfer was void. The auction-sale cannot be validated merely because it was conducted under Orders of the Civil Court especially when such sale if allowed to stand would tend to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act. That Act would stand as a clear bar to the claim of the decree-holder in respect of lands which were involved in the surplus area proceedings.