MANIBHAI DAHYABHAI v. STATE — 1993 DIGILAW 377 (GUJ)

D. G. KARIA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner an old man of 91 years has challenged the legality and validity of the decision dated 21/02/1983 rendered in Revision Application No. TEN B. A. 171/92 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal confirming the judgment dated 28/08/1981 by the Deputy Collector Vyara in Ceiling Case No. 8/77. By the impugned judgment the Tribunal dismissed the revision application of the petitioner herein and confirmed the decision of the Deputy Collector to the effect that the petitioner transferred the land in question with a view to defeat the object of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 (for short the Land Ceiling Act ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner submitted an application under Section 8 (2) of the Land Ceiling Act on 29/09/1976 requesting the Deputy Collector Vyara to issue necessary certificate declaring that the lands transferred by the petitioner by way of agreement to sell dated 24/12/1969 and executing the registered sale document in respect thereof in the year 1972 were not transferred in anticipation in order to defeat the object of the Land Ceiling Act. The petitioner also pleaded that the lands so transferred in the year 1969 were for genuine and bona fide reasons on account of the age of the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE Deputy Collector Vyara after recording the statements of the transferor and the transferees and also that of the concerned Talati and considering the evidence on record by his judgment dated 28/08/1981 rejected the application of the petitioner. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the Deputy Collector preferred the aforesaid revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal discuissed the revision application and confirmed the decision of the Deputy Collector as aforesadid. It is against this judgment that the petitioner has approached this Court by the present petition. ( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the actual possession of the transferred land was handed over on 24/12/1969 when the agreement to sell in respect of the lands in question was executed and part of the consideration was received by the petitioner. The petitioner and the transferees of the land have proved this fact by their evidence. As the full consideration was not paid by the purchaser of the petitioner at the relavant time the registered sale document could not be executed and it was deferred. The petitioner and the transferees of the land have proved this fact by their evidence. As the full consideration was not paid by the purchaser of the petitioner at the relavant time the registered sale document could not be executed and it was deferred. Eventually the said document was registered in the year 1972. According to the petitioner the transaction was bona fide made with genuine reason and was not made in anticipation in order to defeat the object of the Land Ceiling Act. Despite the aforesaid documentary evidence particularly the agreement to sell wherein there is a clear and categorical recital that the land in question has been handed over to the purchaser on 24/12/1969 the Tribunal held that the agreement to sell was got-up and concocted. The Tribunal has recorded its findings as follows: ( 5 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the actual possession of the transferred land was handed over on 24/12/1969 when the agreement to sell in respect of the lands in question was executed and part of the consideration was received by the petitioner. The petitioner and the transferees of the land have proved this fact by their evidence. As the full consideration was not paid by the purchaser of the petitioner at the relavant time the registered sale document could not be executed and it was deferred. Eventually the said document was registered in the year 1972. According to the petitioner the transaction was bona fide made with genuine reason and was not made in anticipation in order to defeat the object of the Land Ceiling Act. Despite the aforesaid documentary evidence particularly the agreement to sell wherein there is a clear and categorical recital that the land in question has been handed over to the purchaser on 24/12/1969 the Tribunal held that the agreement to sell was got-up and concocted. The Tribunal has recorded its findings as follows: ( 6 ) THEREFORE in this view of the documentary evidence stated hereinabove the agreements to sell lands dated 23. 12. 69 produced at pages 83 and 159 before the Prant Officer appear to have been got up and concocted though the said agreements to sell state that the possession had been handed over at the relevant time. 12. 69 produced at pages 83 and 159 before the Prant Officer appear to have been got up and concocted though the said agreements to sell state that the possession had been handed over at the relevant time. ( 7 ) DESPITE the document transferring the land being on record and the petitioners and the transferees having proved the case that the land was so transferred on 24. 12. 1969 it is not understood as to how the Deputy Collector came to the conclusion that such a document was got up. Simply because the said document came to be registered in the year 1972 and that being within the stipulated period as provided under Section 8 of the Land Ceiling Act it cannot be concluded that the transaction or the transfer was made with a view to defeat the object of the Act. ( 8 ) AS held in case of Lajjashanker Keshavji Joshi v. State of Gujarat 26 G. L. R. page 658 the word transfer cannot be construed in a narrow or limited sense. M. B. Shah J. held in the said case as under:4 Further even if we refer to Section 8 (1) it amply bears that the Legislature wanted to include within the meaning word transfer agreement to sell of land with possession. The said proviso states that where any transfer or partitiion of land is effected by a document required by law to be registered which however is not registered during the period specified therein then unless the Court is satisfied on merits of the case that the document is bona fide document executed in fact before 24/01/1971 and that it is not antedated as a result of collusion between the parties otherwise in order tn defeat the object of the Amending Act of 1972 the Court shall not pass a decree in the suit filed for the grant of specific relief on the basis of any such document. This proviso in my opinion without any doubt includes that if there is any contract for sale then also the Legislature considered it to be a transfer even though the said document was required to be registered. This proviso in my opinion without any doubt includes that if there is any contract for sale then also the Legislature considered it to be a transfer even though the said document was required to be registered. The Legislature was knowing it very well that there cannot be transfer of any immovable property without there being registered document yet they have used the word transfer or partition of the land effected by a document required by law to be registered which is however not registered. This means that the Legislature thought that even if any person agrees to transfer the land by an unregistered document even that type of transfer would be also included within the meaning of word transfer. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of Statutes that the Court must deduce the intention of the Legislature from the words used in the Act. The word transfer is not defined in the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act. Normally as the word transfer is a term of well-known legal significance under the Transfer of Property Act no other meaning could be given to the said word but at the same time when the Legislature has used it in a broader sense or wider sense the word transfer would include even agreement to sell wherein the possession of the land is parted in favour of purchaser. In view of aforesaid meaning of word transfer as contemplated in Section 8 (1) of the Act the transfer made by the petitioner in the year 1969 was a proper and legal one and cannot be said to be within the stipulated period provided in Section 8 (1) of the Act. ( 9 ) MR. U. R. Bhatt learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the village form No. 7/12 did not show the name of the transferee in the year 1969 and therefore the actual possession could not have been transferred in the year 1969. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the registered sale document was not made in the year 1969 as the remaining amount of consideration was yet to be recovered from the purchaser and as such it is obvious that the necessary mutation entry could not have been effected in the record of rights. However no explanation was sought from the petitioner or from the transferee in this regard. However no explanation was sought from the petitioner or from the transferee in this regard. In the facts of the case the Deputy Collector and the Tribunal have committed error of law in interpreting and applying the provisions of Section 8 (1) of the Land Ceiling Act. ( 10 ) IN the above premises the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal rendered in Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 171/8 2/02/1983 confirming that of the Deputy Collector dated 28/08/1981 in Ceiling Case No. 8/77 are quashed and set aside. Application under Section 8 (2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 of the petitioner for declaration under Section 8 of the said Act stands granted. Rule is made absolute. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. .