PETITIONER:
RAJAMMAL AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MOOKAN @ PERIA PERUMAL THEVAL & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/08/1981
BENCH:
ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)
BENCH:
ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
SEN, A.P. (J)
CITATION:
1981 AIR 1664 1982 SCR (1) 174
1981 SCC (3) 518 1981 SCALE (3)1144
ACT:
Madras Bhoodan Yagna Act (15 of 1958) sections 11, 16,
17, 20 and 23- Donation of land to Bhoodan Board prior to
commencement of Act-Not invalid for want of registration.
Madras Bhoodan (Amendment) Yagna Act 1964, section 11
and 24-Meaning and scope of.
HEADNOTE:
The suit land belonged to one Naidu who donated it to
Bhoodan Yagna in 1953 through unregistered deeds. Later the
Madras Bhoodan Yagna Act 1958 came into force and this Act
of 1958 was further amended by Bhoodan (Amendment) Act 1964.
The said land was allotted to the respondents under the Act
who claimed to have been in possession of the land since
before the donation. Naidu sold the suit lands to the
appellants by a registered sale deed. The appellants filed
the suit for declaration of their title to, and possession
of, the said land and pleaded that (i) as the donation of
the land by Naidu was not by any registered deed, no title
could be passed to the Bhoodan Board and subsequently to the
respondents and (ii) Naidu validly transferred title of the
lands to them. The respondents pleaded that (i) the land
vested in the Bhoodan Board under the Bhoodan Act and (ii)
Naidu had no saleable interest thereto which he could
transfer to the appellants by the deed of sale. The trial
court decreed the appellant's suit which was upheld by the
first appellate court. The respondents preferred second
appeal before the High Court which reversed the decree of
the courts below and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On
appeal, it was argued by the appellants that the donation
was invalid for want of registered deed and the provisions
of the Bhoodan (Amendment) Act do not have retrospective
effect.
Dismissing the appeal,
^
HELD: 1. The object of the Bhoodan Yagna Act is "to
facilitate the donation of lands for the Bhoodan Yagna
initiated by Shri Acharya Vinoba Bhave and the transfer and
settlement of such land for the benefit of poor landless
persons or for community purposes and to provide in Gramdan
villages for the vesting of lands in, and the management of
those lands by the Sarvodaya Panchayat in the State of
Madras." [176 H, 177 A-B]
2. Section 11 clearly shows that intention of the
Legislature was to bring in to the purview of the Bhoodan
Act lands donated by any person before the commencement of
the Bhoodan Act. The law ingrained in section 11 is merely
declaratory in express terms of the already existing law
under the Bhoodan Act of 1958. [177 E-F, 182 B]
175
3. Clause (b) of section 11 of the Bhoodan (Amendment)
Act puts a bar on the maintenance of a suit or other
proceedings in any Court for the declaration of title to, or
recovery of possession of, any land donated for the Bhoodan
Yagna on the ground that the transfer (donation) was not in
accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property
Act or Indian Registration Act. Clause (c) to section 11
goes one step further and lays down that even if a decree
has already been passed in such a suit, no court shall
execute a decree in a suit referred to in clause (b). [181
G-H, 182 A-B]
4. Section 24 of the Act leaves no doubt that the
provisions of the Bhoodan Act had retrospective effect and
intended to include donations of land by any person to the
Bhoodan Yagna made before the commencement of the Bhoodan
Act, and such donations were also exempted from the relevant
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Indian
Registration Act with retrospective effective. [180 B-C]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1932 of
1970.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree
dated the 31st December, 1969, of the Madras High Court in
Second Appeal No. 348 of 1966,
M. Natesan, Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran and K. Kumar for
the Appellants.
Vepa P. Sarathy, Gopal Subramanian and Mrs. S.
Gopalakrishnan, for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BAHARUL ISLAM, J. This appeal by special leave is by
the plaintiffs. The material facts of the case are that the
suit land belonged to one Venkataramabhadra Naidu, a
Zamindar (hereinafter ‘Naidu’), who donated it to Bhoodan
Yagna on August 18, 1953 by executing documents, Exs. B-1
and B-2, which were unregistered deeds. Later in 1958, in
Madras Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958 (hereinafter ‘The Bhoodan
Act’) came into force. The Madras Bhoodan Yagna Board
constituted under section 3 of the Bhoodan Act and
functioning under the Act allotted the suit land to the
defendants who claimed to have been in possession of the
land since before the donation. On August 3, 1960, Naidu
sold the suit land to the plaintiff by a registered sale-
deed for a sum of Rs. 2000. The plaintiffs alleged that they
were in possession of the suit land but as the defendants
were interfering in their possession, they filed the suit
for declaration of their title to, and possession of, the
suit land.
176
The plaintiffs’ case was that as the donation of the land by
Naidu was not by any registered deed, no title passed to the
Bhoodan Board and subsequently to its allottees, namely, the
defendants and that Naidu validly transferred title to them.
2. The defendants’ case, inter alia, was that the land
vested in the Bhoodan Board under the provisions of the
Bhoodan Act, and Naidu had no saleable interest thereto
which he could transfer to the plaintiffs by the sale deed.
3. The Trial Court decreed the plaintiffs’ suit. The
decree was upheld by the First Appellate Court on appeal by
the defendants. Both the courts held that the donation of
the suit and by Naidu was not in conformity with Section 17
of the Registration Act and Section 12 of the Transfer of
Property Act and as such title to the suit land did not pass
from Naidu to the Bhoodan Board. The defendants preferred a
second appeal before the High Court. The High Court reversed
the decree of the courts below and dismissed the plaintiffs’
suit.
4. It has to be mentioned that the First Appellate
Court passed its decree on October 1, 1962 while the High
Court passed its impugned decree on 31st December, 1969;
while in the meantime, in 1964, the Madras Bhoodan Yagna Act
of 1958 was amended by the Madras Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment)
Act, 1964 (hereinafter ‘the Bhoodan (Amendment) Act’).
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
donation of the suit land by Naidu to the Bhoodan Board was
before the passing of the Bhoodan Act of 1958 and the
Bhoodan (Amendment) Act of 1964; as such the provisions of
these two Acts could not save the donation of the suit land
by Naidu to Bhoodan Board from the operation of the relevant
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Indian
Registration Act. In other words, the submission is that the
donation was invalid for want of a registered deed.
6. It may be mentioned that counsel of the appellants
has not challenged the validity or vires of the provisions
of the Bhoodan Act or Bhoodan (Amendment) Act. His
submission is that the above provisions do not have
retrospective effect.
7. The object of the Bhoodan Act is, as it appears from
the preamble, “to facilitate the donation of lands for the
Bhoodan Yagna
177
initiated by Shri Acharya Vinobha Bhave and the transfer and
settlement of such lands for the benefit of landless poor
persons or for community purposes and to provide in Gramdan
Villages for the vesting of lands in, and the management of
those lands by the Sarvodaya Panchayat in the State of
Madras.”
‘Bhoodan Yagna’ has been defined under clause (a) of
section 2 as meaning “the movement initiated by Shri Acharya
Vinobha Bhave for the acquisition of lands through voluntary
gifts for distribution to landless poor persons, cooperative
societies or Sarvodaya Panchayats or for community
purposes.” It is why, therefore; it appears, the donations
of land to Bhoodan Yagna were exempted from the operation of
the Indian Registration Act and the Transfer of Property
Act, as it will, presently appear.
8. I shall first refer to the relevant provisions of
the original Bhoodan Act (of 1958) and examine the position
of the law that was before the amendment of 1964. Section 3
of the Bhoodan Act provided for the establishment and
incorporation of a Board-to be called “The Madras State
Bhoodan Yagna Board” (herein-after the ‘Bhoodan Board’).
Section 11 of the Bhoodan Act provided, “All lands donated
for the purposes of the Bhoodan Yagna whether before
(emphasis added) or after the commencement of this Act
shall, subject to the provisions of section 16, 17 and 20,
vest in the State Board”.
Section 11 clearly shows that the intention of the
Legislature was to bring in to the purview of the Bhoodan
Act lands donated by any person before the commencement of
the Bhoodan Act.
Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 which is
material is in the following terms:-
“16(1)-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in any other law for the time being in force,(a) any owner may, by declaration made in the
prescribed manner, donate his land for the Bhoodan
Yagna.Provided that ……………..
Provided further that ……….
Sub-section (3) to Section 16 reads:
178
“Every declaration made under sub-section (1)
shall be filed with the Tahsildar or the Deputy
Tahsildar in independent charge having jurisdiction in
the taluk or sub-taluk where the land is situate.”Sub-section (1) of Section 17 provided “Every
declaration filed under sub-section (3) of section 16 shall,
as soon as may be, be published in the Fort St. George
Gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed.”Any person whose interest were affected by the
declaration of the donation might file objections before the
Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar under sub-section (2). Under
sub-section (3), the Tahsildar or the Deputy Tahsildar had
to register every such objection, fix a date of hearing and
give notice of the date of hearing to the donor, and the
objector, the Bhoodan Board and the Local Committee
concerned, and then under sub-section (4), had to
investigate and dispose of the objection, and by an order
confirm the declaration or declare it null and void. Sub-
sections (5) and (6) which are important were in the
following terms:-“Sub-section (5)-If the Tahsildar or the Deputy
Tahsildar confirms the declaration, then,
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, all the right, title and
interest of the donor in such land shall stand
transferred to and vest in the State Board for the
purchases of the Bhoodan Yagna (emphasis added).
Sub-section (6)-Every order under sub-section (5)
confirming a declaration shall be published in the Fort
St. George Gazette and on such publication, the
donation of land shall, subject to the provisions of
section 23, be irrevocable.”Sub-section (5) in clear terms lays down that on the
confirmation of the declaration of the donation,
notwithstanding the provisions of ‘any other law’, (to wit
the Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Registration Act
in this case) right, title and interest in the land “shall
stand transferred to and vest in” the Bhoodan Board. And
after publication of the order of confirmation of the
donation, it can be challenged only by a suit contemplated
by Section 23.179
Sub-section (1) of section 20 provided that “The State
Board shall prepare a list of all lands donated for purposes
of Bhoodan Yagna prior to (emphasis added) the commencement
of this Act” showing the area, description and other
particulars of the land, the name and address of the donor
and allied matters. Sub-section (1) to section 20 also shows
that the Bhoodan Act was intended to include the donations
made prior to the commencement of this Act. Sub-section (2)
provides for publication of the list prepared under sub-
section (1) in the Fort St. George Gazette.The proviso added after sub-section (3) of section 20,
and sub-section (4) of section 20 are important and need be
extracted. They are as follows:-“Sub-section (3)……………
Provided that where an order is made by the
Inquiry Officer under sub-section (4) of section 17
confirming the donation, such donation shall be deemed
to have been accepted with effect from the date on
which the donation was made and for this purpose, this
Act shall be deemed to have been in force on such date.
Sub-section (4)-Where such land has been granted
to any person it shall, with effect from the date of
grant, be deemed further to have been granted to the
grantee under and in accordance with the provisions of
Section 19.”These two are deeming provisions and are a complete
answer to the appellants’ contention. The meaning of the
proviso is that although the Bhoodan Act was not in
existence at the time a donation was made its acceptance by
the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar later on after the
commencement of the Act, (as in the case in hand), by virtue
of the deeming provision, the Act shall be deemed to be in
existence on the date of the donation. Sub-section (4) had
made a similar deeming provision for the grant made in
favour of a grantee before the coming into force of the
Bhoodan Act.Section 24 reads: “Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law, every declaration and every grant of land
made or deemed to have been made under this Act shall be and
be deemed always to have been exempt from the payment of
stamp duty and of encumbrance certificate fee, registration
fee or of the fee payable for the attestation of a power of
attorney under section 33, sub-section
180
(2), of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI
of 1908).” (emphasis added). The provision of this section
also shows that donations and grants under the Bhoodan Act
were exempted from the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act and the Indian Registration Act with
retrospective effect.The above considerations leave no doubt at all that the
provisions of the Bhoodan Act had retrospective effect and
intended to include donations of land by any person to the
Bhoodan Yagna made before the commencement of the Bhoodan
Act, and such donations were also exempted from the relevant
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Indian
Registration Act with retrospective effect.8. Section 23 made the order of Tahsildar or Deputy
Tahsildar under sub-section (4) of Section 17, final and not
subject to appeal or revision. An aggrieved party however
was not without remedy. Under the proviso of section 23, any
person whose interest was affected as a result of the
donation to the Bhoodan Yagna, whether before or after the
commencement of the Act, might file a suit to set aside the
order of the Tahsildar or the Deputy Tahsildar. The
plaintiffs in the present suit (appellants before us) filed
no such suit.9. Let us now turn to the relevant provisions of the
Bhoodan (Amendment) Act of 1964. There was no material
amendment to section 16 of the original Act. Only “The State
Board” was substituted for “Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar”.
There was also no material amendment to Section 17.
“Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar” was replaced by ‘Inquiry
Officer’. Only with the substitution of ‘Inquiry Officer’
for ‘Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar’, section 20 and section
23 have been retained. Section 24 as amended is as follows:-“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law, every declaration and every grant of land made or
deemed to have been made under this Act shall be and be
deemed always to have been exempt from registration and
payment of stamp duty and of encumbrance certificate
fee.”A comparison of the new section 24 with the old section
24 shows that there has been no change in the law so far as
registration and stamp duty were concerned.181
10. Section 11 of the Bhoodan (Amendment) Act of 1964
is new and very important. Clauses (b) and (c) which are
material for our purpose need be extracted:“Section 11-Notwithstanding anything contained in
any judgment, decree or order of any Court, no donation
of any land for the Bhoodan Yagna or for Gramdan and no
grant of any such land made or deemed to have been made
under the principal Act as in force immediately before
the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to be
invalid on the ground only that the donation or the
grant of land as aforesaid was not made in accordance
with any law relating to transfer of property or
registration, and any such donation or grant of land
shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be and to have
always been validly made and accordingly-(a) …..
(b) no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or
continued in any Court for the declaration of
title to, or the recovery of possession of, any
land donated for the Bhoodan Yagna or for Gramdan
on the ground that the donation was not made in
accordance with the law relating to transfer of
property or registration;(c) no Court shall enforce any decree or order
declaring any donation of land for the Bhoodan
Yagna or for Gramdan to be invalid or directing
the recovery of possession of any such land by the
person who donated it or any other person claiming
under him, on ground referred to in clause (b):Provided that………………
Provided further that………………
Provided also that…………………
Explanation……………………….”
Clause (b) of section 11 of the Bhoodan (Amendment) Act
puts a bar on the maintenance of a suit or other proceedings
in any Court for the declaration of title to, or recovery of
possession of, any land donated for the Bhoodan Yagna on the
ground that the transfer (donation) was not in accordance
with the provisions of the
182
Transfer of Property Act or Indian Registration Act. Clause
(c) to section 11 goes one step further and lays down that
even if a decree has already been passed in such a suit, no
court shall execute a decree in a suit referred to in clause
(b).
11. It is thus seen that the law both under the old and
the new Acts so far as the operation of the provisions of
the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act is
concerned, is the same. The law ingrained in section 11 is
merely declaratory in express terms of the already existing
law under the Bhoodan Act of 1958.
12. The second appeal that was pending before the High
Court fell within the mischief of clause (b) of section 11.
Even if there had been no appeal by the defendants, the
execution of the decree passed by the First Appellate Court
could have been successfully objected to by the defendant or
any other person as void on the ground that the suit itself
was barred under section 23 of the old Act itself.
13. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed with
costs.
N.K.A. Appeal dismissed.
183