State of Gujarat v. Narges K. Panthaky

Judgment

STATE OF GUJARAT NARGES K. PANTHAKY NOVEMBER 2, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, J.J.j Gujarat A1,"iu1lt11ral Lands Ceiling Act, JO(,(): S.8( 1 }-Detem1inarion of Ceiling area and swplus area-Agreement to tran.1fer title in favour of mothe1~Since such a&"·eemellt is a compulsmily registerable document under S. 17 of Registration Act, non-Registration thereof; the owner is not divested of the 1igh1 and Litle-Maller remilled to ceiling aulhmity to compute the ceiling area-Registration Act, S.17. While proceedings were initiated under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, the respondents claimed that under an agreement, 30 acres of land was transferred in favour of the respondent's mother which was dnly recognised by mutation proceedings. The respondent's plea was accepted by the authorities and the High Court. Hence this appeal by the State Government. Allowing: the appeal, this Court B ELD : J. By operation of Section 17 of the Registration Act, agreen1ent transferring title is a compulsorily registerable document.

Since it has not hl'cn registered, the oWnt'r has not been divested of the rig:ht 1 title and intert·st in the land and thu~ continued to be the owner of the land under the AL! [736-B] 2. 'fhe 111atter is ren1itted to the ceiling authorit)' to ccnnpute the ceiling urea keeping in vie\V n·hal hus been held in this order. The antiHn·ities 'rnuld takt' further action accor<ling to la\V. [736-C] CIVIL APPEL.LATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10481 of 199'i. From !he Judgment and Order dated 14.7.83 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No. 2482 of Jl/81. STATE"· NARGES K. P ANTHAKY Dushyant Dave and Ms. H. Wahi for the Appellant. R.P. Bhatt Ms. Neclam Kalsi and Vimal Dave, for the Rcspondcnl. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. The proceedings were initiated under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short, "the Act") to determine the ceiling area and the surplus area.

The respondent claimed that under an agreement dated October 14, 1969, thirty acres of land had been transferred in favour of the respondent's mother which was duly recognised by mutation proceedings dated 15.9.1971. The question is whether it is to defeat the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act reads thus : · "8. Transfers or partitions made after 15th .January 1959 but before commencement of this Act. (1) Where after 15th day of January, 1959 but before the commencement of this Act or after 24th day of January, 1971, but before the specified date, any person has transferred whether by sale, gift, mortgage, with possession, exchange lease. surrender or otherwise or partitioned any land held by him, then notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force such transfer or partition shall, unless it is proved to the contrary, be deemed to have been made in anticipation in order to defeat the object of this Act.

Where such transfer or partition was made after 15th day of .January 1959 but before the comn1enccmcnt of this Act or in order to defeat the object of the An1c1HJing Act of 1972 \Vlicrc such transfer \Vas n1a<lc after 24th day of .January, 1971 hut bcfnrc the specified date." A reading thereof \vould clearly indicate that nnt\vithstanding anything contained in any la\\' for the time being in force such transfer or partition shall, unless it is proved to the contrary, he <lec1ne<l to have been made in anticipation in order to defeat the nbyct oft he Act. The question is whether this agrcen1cnt is a transfer. Shri R.P. Bhatl. learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, has taken us through the agrccn1cnt \vhich had specifically stated that right, title and interest of the land \Vas conferred fnr tht: lirst tiine in favour of the rcspondcnt under this Jocun1cnt. Therehy, the right title and inter~~!. hL:ld hy the O\Vncr of the land is sought to be extinguished.

In turn it is sought to be conferred in favour of the respondent for the first time under the document. By operation of Section 17 of the Registration Act, it is a compulsorily registerable document. Since it has not been registered, the owner has not been divested of the right, title and interest in the land and thus continued to be the owner of the land under the Act. The authorities and the High ·Court have not appropriately considered this question. The appeal is allowed accordingly and the mater is remitted to the ceiling authority to compute the ceiling area keeping in view what has been held in this order. The authorities would take further action according to law. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.