2020 Supreme(SC) 406

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
VINODCHANDRA SAKARLAL KAPADIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2573 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18525 of 2009)
Arjunbhai Sumanlal Bhavsar – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and ors. – Respondents
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2574 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.22867 of 2009)
WITH
Rajenbhai Baldevbhai Shah – Appellant
Versus
Baljiben Kabhaibhai Patanwadia and ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2575 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.33708 of 2009)
WITH
Rajenbhai Baldevbhai Shah – Appellant
Versus
Laxmanbhai Fakirbhai and ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2576 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.22460 of 2009)
WITH
Gopiraj Dhanraj Bagmar and anr. – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2577 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.24357 of 2009)
WITH
Rameshbhai Bankabhai – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2578 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.24360 of 2009)
WITH
Babubhai Manchhabhai Bharvad – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2579-2580 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.2080 of 2011)
WITH
Shailadevi Pooranraj and ors. – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2581-2582 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.21688 of 2012)
WITH
Shri Kishan Chand Bela Ram Advani – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2583 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.32288 of 2013)
WITH
Ghanshyambhai Narbheram – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2584-2585 OF 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.16669 of 2015)
Decided On : 15-06-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) If a person is a beneficiary of a statutory purchase and wishes to transfer his holding law obliges that he must take prior sanction from Collector.
(2) There is legal bar on agriculturist from parting with his agricultural land to a non-agriculturist through a Will.

Headnote:

(A) Tenancy – Transfers of Holding – Legal bar on agriculturist from parting with his agricultural land to a non-agriculturist through a Will – Where object of legislation is to prevent a mischief and to confer protection on weaker sections of society, court would not hesitate in placing an extended meaning, even a stretched one, on the word, if in doing so statute would succeed in attaining object sought to be achieved – Scheme is to effectuate distribution of agricultural lands in such a way that persons who are disadvantaged, would be conferred ownership – After such purchase, law obliges purchaser to cultivate land personally and not to transfer it – If a tenant or any other person from priority list is conferred ownership in respect of agricultural land or when a landlord is allowed to retain the land which was surrendered by his tenant, each one of them is obliged to cultivate land personally – In case any of them is unwilling, land must be given to those who principally depend upon agricultural operations for their sustenance – If a person is a beneficiary of such statutory purchase and wishes to transfer his holding law obliges that he must take prior sanction from Collector – While granting such sanction, authorities may essentially check whether transferee is an agriculturist or an agricultural labour who otherwise fulfils requirements and would carry out obligation of cultivating land personally and that his holding would not go beyond ceiling limit – Since ownership itself was conferred as a result of legislative scheme, these conditions are inherent in very conferral of ownership and specifically incorporated in Section 43 with direct reference to provisions named therein. [Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1948 – Sections 43 and 63] (Paras 20, 22 and 23)

(B) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1948 – Sections 43 and 63 – Transfers of Holding – Legal bar on agriculturist from parting with his agricultural land to a non-agriculturist through a Will – A transfer inter vivos would normally be for consideration where transferor may get value for land but legislation requires previous sanction of concerned authority so that transferee can step into shoes of transferor and carry out all obligations as a part of legislative scheme must be discharged – Screening whether a transferee is eligible or not, can be undertaken even before actual transfer is effected – As against this, if a testamentary disposition which does not have element of consideration is to be permitted and if it is assumed that Sections 43 and 63 of Act do not get attracted, land can be bequeathed to a total stranger and a non-agriculturist who may not cultivate land himself which in turn may then lead to engagement of somebody as a tenant on the land – Legislative intent to do away with absentee landlordism and to protect cultivating tenants and to establish direct relationship between cultivator and land would then be rendered otiose – Construction put on expression “assignment” appearing in Section 43, has to be consistent with legislative scheme – In context of entire scheme, term “assignment” used in Section 43 of Act must include testamentary disposition as well – If it is held that testamentary disposition would not get covered by provisions of Section 43, a gullible person can be made to execute a testament in favour of a person who may not fulfil requirements and be eligible to be a transferee in accordance with law – This may not only render natural heirs of the tenant without any support or sustenance, but may also have serious impact on agricultural operations. (Para 24)

(C) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1948 – Sections 43 and 63 – Transfers of Holding – Legal bar on agriculturist from parting with his agricultural land to a non-agriculturist accordance with law – Primary concern of those provisions is to see that legislative scheme of granting protection to persons from disadvantaged categories and conferring right of purchase upon them, and thereby ensure direct relationship of a tiller with land – Provisions, though lay down a norm which may not be fully consistent with principles of Indian Succession Act, are principally designed to attain and sub-serve purpose of protecting holdings in hands of disadvantaged categories – Prohibition against transfers of holding without previous sanction of concerned authorities, is to be seen in that light as furthering cause of legislation – Even if by process of construction, expression “assignment” is construed to include testamentary disposition, in keeping with settled principles, incidental encroachment cannot render said provisions invalid – In pith and substance, legislation and concerned provisions are completely within competence of State Legislature and by placing construction upon the expression “assignment” to include testamentary disposition, no transgression will ensue. (Para 31)

Facts of the case:

These Appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 17.03.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.25058 of 2006 and all other connected matters while answering the questions referred to it by a Single Judge of the High Court. Issue is whether Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1948 debars an agriculturist from parting with his agricultural land to a non-agriculturist through a “Will” so also, whether Section 43(1) of the Tenancy Act restricts transfer of any land or interest purchased by the tenant under Sections 17B, 32, 32F. 321. 320, 32U, 33(1) or 88E or sold to any person under Section 32P or 64 of the Tenancy Act through the execution of a Will by way of testamentary disposition.

Findings of Court:

Prohibition against transfers of holding without the previous sanction of the concerned authorities, is to be seen in that light as furthering the cause of legislation. Even if by the process of construction, the expression “assignment” is construed to include testamentary disposition, in keeping with the settled principles, the incidental encroachment cannot render the said provisions invalid. In pith and substance, the legislation and the concerned provisions are completely within the competence of the State Legislature and by placing the construction upon the expression “assignment” to include testamentary disposition, no transgression will ensue.

Result : Appeals dismissed.