Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. P. Singh, C. J. and Faizanuddin, J.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE, GWALIOR - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 275 Of 1982
Decided On : 01/04/1983
(2) Interpretation of Statutes-social welfare legislation-mode of construction.
In construing a provision in the Ceiling Act the broad objective of the Act has to be kept in view. The Ceiling Act is a social welfare legislation designed to implement the· great objective of securing social justice enshrined in the Preamble and the Directive Principales of the Constitution. The object of the Ceiling Act is to make available surplus land to the Government for distribution to the needy. The rules of construction applicable to expropriatory legislation are not applicable here and language permitting the construction which best secures the object of the Ceiling Act must be preferred against others which seek to defeat agrarian purpose. [Para 12]
(3) Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (MP)-Ss. 16(2) (ii) and 35-interpretation of section 16(2)(ii)-'trees'-meaning of-agricultural in- come-what is.
(4) Words and Phrases-'agricultural income'-what is.
The very object of allotment of surplus land to agricultural labourers and landless persons on payment of premium equivalent to compensation shows that the compensation provided for in the Act was not intended to be so high as to be out of reach of the labourers and landless persons.
The word "trees" in section 16(2)(ii) is used to signify trees such as those in a grove or orchard i.e. trees planted by the holder which can be described to be improvement and not trees of spontaneous growth such as in a forest.
The intention of the legislature was to make provision for compensation for trees planted by the holder as is done in an orchard or a mango grove. [Para 12]
Income from trees of spontaneous growth is not an agricultural income and the Legislature could not have intended to make provision for payment of compensation for loss of nonagricultural income. All these considerations lead us to the conclusion that though the word "trees" in section 16(2)(ii) is used without any qualification still it must be construed to mean only trees which are planted by the holder. [Para 12]
The word 'trees' has to be construed to mean only trees which are planted by the holder and not trees of spontaneous growth. The expression "trees, if any, standing on land" would thus mean trees, if any, planted by the holder on the surplus land which are standing on the date of vesting i.e. which have not been removed or felled before that date. [Para 12]
(5) Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (M P) - S.16(2)(ii)- 'trees'-when improvement.
Trees which are of spontaneous growth cannot be regarded as improvement made by the holder. Only trees which are planted by the holder can be regarded as improvement on the land held by him. [Para 12]
(6) Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (MP)-Ss. 50 and 16 and Rr. 3-A [(under section 16(2)(ii)]-is valid.
Rule 3-A and Form A-2 carry out the object of the Act by fixing the amount of compensation payable for the trees and cannot be said to, be beyond the rule making power conferred under section 50(1) which empowers the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act.
The Rule and Form are not voilative of Article 14 being arbitrary and discriminatory. They cannot be challanged. [Para 13]
(7) Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (MP)- S.16(2)(ii) rule awarding compensation for trees-is not retrospective-does not apply to cases under unamended Act.
The rule awarding compensation for trees is not retrospective. [Para 14]
The provision would not apply to the surplus land which had already vested in the State in the first set of ceiling cases, [Para 15]
(8) Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 (MP)- S.5 - cases under unamended Act-are to be decided first according to the un-amended law-new case cannot include the land declared surplus under the old case.
The land once vested in the State in accordance with the Ceiling Act as it stood before the amendment by Act No. 13 of 1974, could not be subject matter of a fresh ceiling case and it could not be again declared to be surplus. In deed, even the ceiling cases pending on 7th March 1974 when Acts Nos. 12 and 13 of 1974 came into force reducing the ceiling area had to be decided in accordance with the principal Act and fresh ceiling cases had to be started under the amended provisions in respect of the area remaining with the holders after the vesting of surplus land in accordance with the principal Act. [Para 15]
(9) Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 (MP)-S. 5 (1)-transfers without permission of Collector-are void.
Section 5 (1) of the Act creates a statutory ban on transfer and sub-divisions until a final order under section 11 is passed, except with the permission in writing of the Collector. It is true that the section does not in terms say that a transfer made in contravention of the prohibition contained in it would be void, but that would be the consequence in view of section 23 of the Contract Act read with section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act. The purpose of section 5 was to prevent a holder from defeating the object of the Act by making transfers or sub-divisions of his holding. Even if permission is applied for, the Collector cannot grant permission for transfer or subdivision if the object of the Act would be defeated. There being a public policy behind section 5, the requirement of permission of the Collector must be construed as mandatory and transfers made in contravention of that requirement must be held to be void for all purposes. 1972 RN 476 overruled. AIR 1975 All. 166 & AIR 1964 All. 1 referred to. [Para 17]
(10) Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (MP)-Ss.9 and 10 - land held by a transferee under an invalid transfer-ceiling case cannot be started against him in respect of such land. [Para 18]
(11) Constitution of India-Arts. 226 and 227-Government not filing appeal against order in ceiling cases-to save public interest and protect public exchequer the High Court can interefere. [Para 19]
(12) Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (MP) - S. 2(k)-forest land-held in Bhumiswami rights-is 'land' for the purpose of the Ceiling Act. [Para 2]
(13) Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals and Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (MP) - S. 4 - forest land-cannot be home farm-vested in the State-cannot be allotted in Bhumiswami rights to the exproprietor. [Paras 2 and 20]
(14) Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (MP) - S.16(2)(ii) compensation for trees-is in lieu of the taking away of exemption relating to orchard and mango groves. [Para 12]
( 1 ) THIS order will also dispose of Miscellaneous Petition No. 1051 of 1981. This case illustrates how unimaginative and casual (we refrain from using the word mala fide) execution of land reforms legislations by revenue officers cannot only completely defeat their object but can also burden the State with enormous financial liabilities for which it is really not liable.
( 2 ) ONE Hariprasad Naik was proprietor of village Shivpuri in Raigarh District. The proprietary rights were abolished by the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, with effect from 31st March 1951 which was the date of vesting under the Act. The consequences of vesting are given in Section 4 of the Act which, like any other similar Act. vests in the State free from all encumbrances all rights, title and interest of the proprietor in the land of a proprietary village including grass land, scrub jungle, forest etc. A proprietor was allowed to retain in his possession, as provided in Section 4 (2), only homestead and home-farm land. It appears that village Shivpuri was essentially a forest area and in the normal course almost the entire village ought to have vested in the State. But surprisingly very large areas comprising of forest were allotted in Bhumiswami rights not only to the ex-proprietor Naik but also to his wife, wife's sister and wife's sister's daughter. The lands which came to be held by Naik and his relatives in Bhumiswami rights in Shivpuri after abolition are as follows : (1) Hariprasad Naik, Khasra no. 12, area 496. 76 acres. (2) Krishna Kumari (wife's sister of Hari prasad), Khasra Nos. 30 and 39. area 183. 32 acres. (3) Sitarani, w/o Hariprasad, Khasra Nos. 36, 27 and 28 area 245. 00 acres. (4) Tarlika Kumari, d/o Krishna Kumari, Khasra no. 11, area 76. 73 acres.
( 3 ) AFTER the coming into force of the Madhya pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, four ceiling cases were initiated in respect of the aforesaid holders. The ceiling case in respect of Naik was Case No. 178/8/90-B/63-64. The Competent Authority by order dated 19th July, 1972 (Annexure P-25) held that the holder was entitled to retain only 90 acres and declared 406. 76 acres as surplus. The ceiling case in respect of the holding of Krishna Kumari was Case No. 4/a-90-B/1969-70. The Competent Authority by order dated 6th July 1972 (Annexure P-27) allowed the holder to retain 105 acres of land and declared 78. 32 acres as surplus. The ceiling case in respect of Sitarani was Case No. 3/a-90-B/19g9-70. This case was also decided bv the Competent Authority on 7th July 1972 (Annexure P-26 ). The holder was allowed to retain 75 acres of land and 170 acres were declared as surplus. The case concerning Tarlika Kumari was Case No. 1/a-90-B/1969-70 which too was decided by the Competent Authority on 7th July, 1972. In this case the holder was allowed to retain the entire area of 76. 73 acres. The orders of the Competent Authority in these ceiling cases were maintained in the appeals filed by the holders to the Collector and the Additional Commissioner which were dismissed on 23rd March 1974 and on 17th May 1975 respectively. The result of these railing cases is summarised as follows: Holder Land allowed to be Surplus retained. declared. Hariprasad 90 acres 406. 76 acres Naik Krishna Kumari 105 acres 78. 32 acres Siarani 75 acres 170. 00 acres Tarlika Kumari 76. 73 acres 6. 00 acres
( 4 ) BEFORE any final order in the aforesaid ceiling cases could be passed by the Competent Authority and in spite of a ban on transfer, except with the permission in writing ot the Collector, Naik and his relatives referred to above transferred their holdings by four sale-deeds executed on 17th January 1967 in favour of Mamanchand and his family members/relations tor a total consideration of Rs. 30,000. The details of these transfers are as follows :
(1) Hariprasad Naik sold for Rs. 14,000 the entire 496. 76 acres of land to Shambhu Ram, Narsinghdas both sons of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
