Back
1996 JLJ 451
(SUPREME COURT)
K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.
Namdeo v. Collector East Nemar Khandwa and others
Civil Appeal No. 7458 of 1995; against the order of M.P. High Court;
Decided on 22.8.1995.
(2) Samaj Ke Kamjor Wargon Ke Krishi Bhumidharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (M.P.) -- S.2(a) -- transaction of mortgage got written as ‘sale‘ by money lender -- seller remained in possession throughout -- even if initial transaction was of 1964 does not matter -- subsequent transaction in 1974 also falls under the Act. [Para 6
(3) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- Ss. 54 and 53A -- agreement to sell -- does not convey any title and interest -- it creates an enforceable right between parties -- title of previous ower is extinguished only on execution of sale deed and registration thereof. [Para 7
(4) Samaj Ke Kamjor Wargon Ke Krishi Bhumidharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (M.P.) -- Ss.2 (f), 4, 6 (4) and 7 -- transaction of mortgage got recorded as sale -- loan amount also repaid with interest -- it is itself a prohibited transaction -- authorities are entitled to declare such transaction as prohibited transaction -- order not vitiated even if circumstances under S.6 (4) not considered. [Para 9
(5) Samaj Ke Kamjor Wargon Ke Krishi Bhumidharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Samhandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (M.P.) -- Ss. 7 (2), 7 (1) (ii) (a) (b) and 6 (4) - transaction found as prohibited transaction on recording of finding under S.7 (1) (a) -- finding under S. 7 (1) (ii) (c) and 6 (4) not necessary -- payment of difference of price contemplated under S, 7 (2) has no relevance.
It is seen that sub-sec. (1) of S.7 mandates that when the Sub Divisional Officer is satisfied that the transaction of loan is not a prohibited transaction of loan, he shall dismiss the application or close the proceedings, But if he records a finding that the transaction is of loan "in substance" and is a prohibited transaction of loan, he should declare such transaction to be void, should pass an order, setting aside the transfer of the land to the creditor or money-lender‘s nominee or subsequent seller and he should restore possession of the land to the debtor, i.e" holder of the agricultural land, Sub-sec. (2) comes into operation only when no positive finding under S.7 (1) is recorded, In the aforesaid situation only the authorities are required to go into the questions envisaged in sub-sec, (2) and other follow-up action mentioned in that behalf of sub-section (4) of S.6 of the Act. Since the finding of the authorities was that there was no adequate consideration and the sale was within the prohibited period, the findings recorded are under S.7 (1) (a) of the Act; consequently, the need to make enquiry as is necessary under clauses (b) of S.7 (1) (ii) read with sub-sec. (4) of S.6 does not arise, [Para 10
(6) Samaj Ke Kamjor Wargon Ke Krishi Bhumidharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (M.P.) -- S.7 (1) (a) -- transaction set aside exercising powers under -- holder of land interested in land and not in money -Court would not be justified to order payment of prevailing market price instead of land. [Para 11
¼1½ lekt ds detksj oxks± ds Ñf"k Hkwfe /kkjdksa dk m/kkj nsus okyks ds Hkwfe gM+ius laca/kh dqpØksa ls ifj=k.k rFkk eqfDr vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 2 ¼x½ & laO;ogkj ds i‘pkr~ Ñf"kd Hkwfe /kkjd ds dCts esa 8 ,dM+ 20 xqaBk flafpr Hkwfe jgh & ?kkjd ifjHkkf"kr çoxZ esa vkrk gS & vf/kfu;e ykxw gksrk gSA ¿iSjk 5
¼2½ lekt ds detksj oxks± ds Ñf"k Hkwfe /kkjdksa dk m/kkj nsus okyksa ds Hkwfe gM+ius laca/kh dqpØksa ls ifj=k.k rFkk eqfDr vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk ¼d½ & lkgwdkj }kjk ca/kd dk laO;ogkj ^foØ;* ds :i esa fy[kk x;k & foØsrk dk dCtk fujarj jgk & çkjafHkd laO;ogkj 1964 dk gksuk Hkh egRoghu gS & i‘pkr~orhZ 1974 dk laO;ogkj Hkh vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vkrk gSA ¿iSjk 6
¼3½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 & /kkjk 54 rFkk 53d & foØ; djkj & dksbZ gd vFkok fgr gLrkarfjr ugha gksrs & blls i{kdkjksa ds e/; çorZuh; vf/kdkj l`ftr gksrs gSa & iwoZorhZ Lokeh dk gd dsoy foØ; laikfnr gksus vkSj mldk jftLVªhdj.k gksus ij gh lekIr gksrk gSA ¿iSjk 7
¼4½ lekt ds detksj oxks± ds Ñf"k Hkwfe /kkjdksa dk m/kkj nsus okyksa ds Hkwfe gM+ius laca/kh dqpØksa ls ifj=k.k rFkk eqfDr vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 2¼p½] 4] 6¼4½ rFkk 7 & ca/kd dk laO;ogkj foØ; ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr & m/kkj dh jde HKh C;kt lfgr çfrlanÙk & ;g Lo;a gh çfrf"k) laO;ogkj gS & çkf/kdkjh ,sls laO;ogkj dks çfrf"k) laO;ogkj ?kksf"kr djus ds gdnkj gSa & /kkjk 6 ¼4½ ds v/khu ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;k gks rc Hkh vkns‘k nwf"kr ugha gSaA ¿iSjk 9
¼5½ lekt ds detksj oxks± ds Ñf"k Hkwfe /kkjdksa dk m/kkj nsus okyksa ds Hkwfe gM+ius dqpØksa ls ifj=k.k rFkk eqfDr vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 7¼2½] 7¼1½ ¼nks½ ¼d½ ¼[k½ rFkk 6¼4½ &/kkjk 7¼1½ ¼d½ ds v/khu fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr djus ij laO;ogkj] çfrf"k) laO;ogkj ik;k x;k & /kkjk 7¼1½ ¼nks½ ¼x½ rFkk 6¼4½ ds v/khu fu"d"kZ vko‘;d ugha & /kkjk 7¼2½ ds v/khu vuq/;kr ewY; ds varj dk lank; lqlaxr ughaA
;g Li"V gS fd /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ esa ;g vkKk gS fd tc mi[kaM vf/kdkjh dk ;g lek/kku gks tkrk gS fd m/kkj dk laO;ogkj çfrf"k) laO;ogkj ugha gS] og vkosnu [kkfjt dj nsxk ;k dk;Zokgh lekIr dj nsxkA fdarq ;fn og ;g fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr djrk gS fda laO;ogkj ^^lkjr%** m/kkj gS vkSj m/kkj dk çfrf"k) laO;ogkj gS] og ,sls laO;ogkj dks ‘kwU; ?kksf"kr djsxk] ysunkj ;k lkgwdkj ds ukefunsZf‘krh ;k i‘pkr~orhZ foØsrk dks Hkwfe dk varj.k vikLr djrs gq, vkns‘k ikfjr djsxk vkSj og Hkwfe dk dCtk _.kh vFkkZr~] Ñf"kHkwfe /kkjd dks dCtk çR;kofrZr djsxkA mi/kkjk ¼2½ rHkh çofrZr gksrh gS tc /kkjk 7¼1½ ds v/khu fuf‘pr fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr ugha fd;k x;k gksA
iwoZdfFkr ifjfLFkfr esa gh çkf/kdkfj;ksa ls mi/kkjk ¼2½ esa ifjdfYir ç‘uksa dh tk¡p rFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ esa bl ckjs esa mfYyf[kr vU; vuqorhZ dkjZokbZ visf{kr gSA D;ksafd çkf/kdkfj;ksa dk fu"d"kZ ;g Fkk fd çfrQy i;kZIr ugha Fkk rFkk foØ; çfrf"k) vof/k ds Hkhrj Fkk] vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7¼1½ ¼d½ ds v/khu gS( ifj.kker%] /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 7¼1½ ¼nks½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds v/khu ;Fkk vko‘;d tk¡p fd;k tkuk vko‘;d ugha gSaA ¿iSjk 10
¼6½ lekt ds detksj oxks± ds Ñf"k Hkwfe /kkjdksa dk m/kkj nsus okyksa ds Hkwfe gM+ius laca/kh dqpØksa ls ifj=k.k rFkk eqfDr vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 7¼1½ ¼d½ & ds v/khu ‘kfDr;k¡ ç;qDr djrs gq, laO;ogkj vikLr & Hkwfe /kkjd dh vfHk#fp Hkwfe] esa] /ku esa ugha & U;k;ky; }kjk Hkwfe ds LFkku ij çpfyr cktkj ewY; ds lank; dk vkns‘k U;k;ksfpr ugha gksxkA ¿iSjk 11
K. Ramaswamy, J. -- 1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is a subsequent purchaser from Devi Prakash son of Laxman Prasad. The case of Rama Krishna, the original owner, is that he had obtained loan from Laxman Prasad, admittedly a money-lender, by an oral mortgage of 12 acres and 20 gunthas of land. Laxman Prasad had delivered 4 acres and odd and got the sale deed executed for 8 acres 30 gunthas of the land in the name of his minor son Devi Prakash. Therefore, he comes within the provisions of M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Wargon Ke Krishi Bhumidharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam [for short, ‘the Act']. The Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated August 27, 1982 recorded a finding that:
"Applicant's witness No.2 Ram Krishna Matharam and applicant's witness No.3 Kadulal have supported this statement. Along with this, non-applicant Eknath (one of the subsequent purchasers) has admitted that upon execution of the instrument of the transaction possession continued and remained with Ram Krishna. It is thus clear from the testimony of these witnesses that for several years after the transaction effected in 1964, Ram Krishna was in possession of the disputed land. It is noticeable that in Khasra 1969-70 also, his partial possession has been shown. Thus from these facts it appears prima facie that the transaction in question was a prohibited transaction of loan because, if it was a transaction of real sale, then Laxman Prasad and Devi Prakash must have taken the land in their possession soon after the execution of the instrument of transaction.'
3. Thus, it was declared that the initial sale dated March 17, 1964 and the subsequent sale deed executed by Devi Prakash in favour of the appellant and another sale deed in favour of Eknath on May 23, 1974 are void and directed the appellant and Eknath to deliver possession of the lands to Rama Krishna. On appeal it was confirmed. When the appellant and another challenged under Article 226 in Misc. Petition No. 1276/83 and another, the Division Bench of M.P. High Court by order dated March 4, 1991 upheld the orders of the Tribunals. Thus this appeal by special leave.
4. Shri P.P. Rao, the learned Senior counsel has contended that the Act has no application for the reason that the land covered by 1964 sale deed relates to 12 acres 20 gunthas while the Act would become applicable when sale transactions are covered within a specified extent of land declared in the Act. We find no force in the contention.
5. Section 2(c) of the Act states that:
(c) "holder of agricultural land" in the weaker sections of the people means a holder of land used for purposes of agriculture not exceeding eight hectares of un irrigated land or four hectares of irrigated land within the State whether as a Bhumiswami or an occupancy tenant or a Government lessee either in anyone or all of the capacities together within the meaning of the Code."
A reading thereof indicates that a holder of an agricultural land not exceeding 8 hectares of un irrigated land or 4 hectares of irrigated land within the State as a Bhoomiswami or occupancy tenant or a Government lessee either in anyone or all of the capacities together is a holder of agricultural land. It is seen that the Sub-Divisional Officer had recorded a finding that what remained in possession of Lakshman Prasad and his son Devi Prasad was 8 acres 20 gunthas and, therefore, it is within the specification of 4 hectares of irrigated land. The Act thereby clearly becomes applicable to the lands in this case.
6. It is next contended that the Act applies only to sale transations effected from the appointed date, namely, January 1, 1971 as specified in section 2 (a). Since the original transaction had taken place in 1964, the Act cannot be applied retrospectively. It is seen that the Sub-Divisional Officer recorded that though sales were effected only in 1974 but the document which purported to have been a sale deed of 19
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
