http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: BHUPENDRASINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/11/1995

BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1996 AIR  583            1996 SCC  (1) 277  JT 1995 (8)   510        1995 SCALE  (6)555

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J. --------------------------      Delay condoned  in view  of the  statements made in the application for condonation of delay.      Leave granted.      These  appeals   relate  to   proceedings   under   the Maharashtra Agricultural  Lands (Ceiling  on Holdings)  Act, 1961 (hereinafter  referred to  as ‘the  Ceiling Act’).  The Surplus Land  Determination Tribunal  held that  out of  the total land  belonging to  the family  of the  appellant  the surplus lands  held were  91.02 acres.  The dispute in these appeals is  confined to  certain lands held by the appellant which he  had purchased  from one  Kisana, a  tribal under a registered sale-deed dated 31.1.1958.      The  Maharashtra  Restoration  of  Lands  to  Schedules Tribes  Act,   1974  (hereinafter   referred  to   as   ‘the Restoration Act’)  came into  force w.e.f.  1st of November, 1975. Section 3 of the Restoration Act provides as follows:-      "Section 3(1) where due to transfer -      (a)the land  of a  Tribal-transferor  is      held by a non-Tribal transferee or      (b).....................................      and  the   land  so  transferred  is  in      possession of the non-Tribal transferee,      and  has   not  been  put  to  any  non-      agricultural use  on or  before the  6th      day of  July, 1974, then notwithstanding      anything contained  in any other law for      the  time   being  in   force,  or   any      judgment,  decree   or  order   of   any      judgment,  decree   or  order   of   any      tribunal  or  authority,  the  Collector      either suo  motu at  any time, or on the      application of  a Tribal transferor made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    within three years from the commencement      of this  Act shall,  after  making  such      enquiry as he thinks fit, direct that --      (i).....................................      (ii)            the                 land      transferred  ...............   be  taken      from the  possession of  the  non-Tribal      transferee, and  restored to  the Tribal      transferor, free  from all  encumbrances      and the Tribal transferor shall pay such      transferee and  other  persons  claiming      encumbrances the amount determined under      Clause (b) of sub-section (4) :      ......................................".      Sub-section (4)  provides for  return of  consideration and  payment  for  improvements  made  on  the  land  to  be determined as set out therein. In the present case on 26-11- 1976 the Authority under the Restoration Act passed an order and directed  that the  land which had been purchased by the appellant from  the Tribal  Kisana which is in Survey No.15, village Padha, Tehsil Kelapur, District Yavatmal be restored to the  heirs of  the tribal  Kisana who  was  the  original transferor. Pursuant  to this  order, on 8th of August, 1977 possession of  the said land was handed over to the heirs of Kisana.      The enquiry  under the  Ceiling Act for determining the ceiling  area  of  the  appellant’s  family  unit  was  held thereafter. The  Surplus Land  Determination Tribunal  held, inter alia,  by its  order dated  30.5.1978, that  the  said lands which were restored to the tribal formed a part of the holding of  the appellant’s  family unit at the commencement date i.e. 2nd of October, 1975 under the Ceiling Act and had to be  included in  the holding  of the  appellant’s  family unit. This  view has  been upheld by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It,  however, remanded  the matters to the Surplus Land Determination  Tribunal  on  other  grounds.  The  writ petition which  was filed  by the  appellant challenging the decision of  the Maharashtra  Revenue Tribunal was dismissed and a Letters Patent appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court  was also  dismissed. Hence the present appeal is filed before us.      The  relevant   date  under  the  Ceiling  Act  is  the commencement date.  For the lowered ceiling the commencement date is 2nd of October, 1975. Under Section 3 of the Ceiling Act, subject  to the  provisions of  Chapter II  and III, no person or  family unit  shall, after  the commencement date, hold land  in excess  of the  ceiling area, as determined in the manner  provided in  the said Act. The appellant, on and after the commencement date, did hold lands in excess of the ceiling area.  For the  purpose  of  determining  the  total holding of  the appellant  the lands  which he had purchased from the Tribal Kisana were includible in his holding on the commencement  date  because  at  that  point  of  time,  the Restoration Act  had not  come into effect. These lands were held by  the appellant  on the  commencement  date  under  a registered sale-deed.  The Restoration  Act came into effect on 1st  November, 1975.  The order  of restoration  is dated 26th November,  1976, and the possession was restored to the Tribal’s heirs  on 8th  August, 1977. The authorities below, therefore, have rightly come to the conclusion that the land which was  subsequently restored to the tribal constituted a part of  the appellant’s holding on the commencement date of the Ceiling Act.      It is  submitted before  us by the appellant that since the lands  have  been  restored  to  the  tribal  under  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

provision to  the Restoration  Act before  the enquiry under the Ceiling Act, the lands cannot be considered as a part of his holding.  The question,  therefore, is  whether  at  the commencement date  and thereafter  these lands formed a part of the  appellant’s  holding.  Under  the  Restoration  Act, however, the  lands which  were purchased  by  a  non-tribal transferee are  restored to  the Tribal transferor. There is no provision  in the  Act which  makes the  sale transaction void ab  initio. Section  3 of  the Restoration Act which is set out above provides for the Authority’s taking possession of the  land from the non-Tribal transferee and restoring it to the  Tribal transferor,  for which  the Tribal transferor has to  return the consideration and pay for improvements as provided in  the Act.  There is  no provision  under the Act providing for any retrospective cancellation or annulment of sales. The  contention, therefore,  that by  virtue  of  the Restoration Act,  the said  land cannot be considered a part of the  appellant’s holding  even prior  to the  coming into effect of  the Restoration  Act, cannot  be accepted. In the case of Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (1985  1 SCC  479) this  Court interpreted  Maharashtra Restoration of  Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 and said that the  Act is  based on  the  principle  of  distributive justice. "It  seeks to  re-open transactions between parties having unequal  bargaining power  resulting in  transfer  of title from  one to another due to force of circumstances and also seeks  to  restitute  the  parties  to  their  original position".  The   sale  transaction,   therefore,  has  been reversed subsequently  as a  result of  the operation of the Restoration Act.  The lands  have, therefore,  been  rightly held to be a part of the appellant’s holding.      We have,  however, to consider whether these lands must be included in the ceiling holding of the appellant.      The restoration of lands under the Restoration Act does not fall  within the  definition  of  "transfer"  under  the Explanation to  Section 8 of the Ceiling Act. The definition of transfer  under the  Explanation  to  Section  8  of  the Ceiling Act is as follows:      "Explanation:    In     this    section,      "transfer" means whether by way of sale,      gift,    mortgage    with    possession,      exchange, lease,  assignment of land for      maintenance, surrender  of a  tenancy or      resumption of  land by a landlord or any      other disposition,  whether  by  act  of      parties made inter vivos or by decree or      order of  a court, tribunal or authority      (except where  such decree  or order  is      passed  in   a   proceeding   which   is      instituted in  such court,  tribunal  or      before such  authority before  the  26th      day of  September, 1970),  but does  not      include  transfer  by  way  of  sale  or      otherwise of  land for  the recovery  of      land revenue  or for sums recoverable as      arrears of  land revenue, or acquisition      of land  for a  public purpose under any      law for the time being in force."      The restoration  is  obviously  not  a  transfer  inter vivos. It  cannot also  be considered as a transfer pure and simple by  an order  of a  court, tribunal or authority. The order of  the authority  here is for the purpose of carrying out the  scheme under  the Restoration Act. The scheme under the Restoration  Act is  for cancellation  of  transfer  and restoration of  land to  the Tribal. The scheme is more akin

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

to the  transactions which  are excluded from the definition of "transfer",  such as  acquisition of  land for  a  public purpose. This  is restoration  of land  to the  Tribal for a public purpose  of effecting  "distributive justice" as this Court has put it. The land which is so restored by reason of the said Act is, therefore, not covered by the definition of "transfer" in  Section 8.  Hence Section 10(1) also will not apply to such land.      Under Section  16(2) of  the Ceiling  Act, a  person or family unit  is entitled to select the lands he or it wishes to retain  upto the  ceiling area.  This right is subject to Section 16(1).  Section 16(1),  inter  alia,  provides  that where a  person or  family unit holds lands in excess of the ceiling area  and the  whole or part of such land is subject to an  encumbrance, then  the person  or family  unit  shall retain such  land upto  the extent  of the ceiling land. The High Court  has treated  the land  restored to the Tribal as encumbered land  of the  appellant. We  fail to  see how the land can  be so  treated. Prior  to the Restoration Act, the land belonged  to the appellant who had a clear title. After the Restoration  Act came into force, the appellant lost the land which  was restored to the Tribal’s heirs much prior to the  order  of  the  Surplus  Land  Determination  Act.  The provisions  of   Section  16(1)  do  not  apply  to  such  a situation.  The  appellant’s  family  unit  was,  therefore, entitled to select the lands.      Section 18  of the  Ceiling Act  requires  the  ceiling authority to  consider certain  matters  enumerated  therein before issuing  a declaration under Section 21 declaring the land which the person or the family unit is entitled to hold and the surplus lands. Clause (d) of Section 18 requires the Collector to  consider, inter  alia, whether any transfer is made by the holder in contravention of Section 8, and if so, whether the  land so  transferred should  be  considered  or ignored in  calculating the ceiling area under Section 10(1) Clause (g)  requires the  authority to  consider what is the total area  of land held at the time of the enquiry and what is the  area of  land which  the holder is entitled to hold. Clause (j)  requires the  authority to  consider whether the proposed retention  of land  by the  holder is in conformity with the  provisions of  Section 16. Clause (k) requires the authority to consider which particular land out of the total lands held  by the  holder should  be delimited  as  surplus land. Clause  (1) requires  the authority  to  consider  any other matter  necessary to  be considered for the purpose of calculating the  ceiling area  and  delimiting  any  surplus land. If  some diminution  in the area held by the person or family unit  has occurred  between the relevant date and the date of the enquiry, the above clauses require that these be taken note  of in accordance with law before any declaration is made  under Section 21. These are important matters to be kept in  mind  especially  when  in  the  instant  case  the diminution has  taken place  by thrust  of another  statute, i.e. the  Restoration Act.  Since the  said land  is neither encumbered land  nor land  transferred in  contravention  of Section 8,  it is  not liable  to be included in the ceiling holding of the appellant.      As the  said land is now restored to the Tribal’s heirs by operation of the provisions of the Restoration Act, there can be  no question of the State now acquiring the said land as surplus  land of  the appellant under the Ceiling Act, as the land does not now form a part of the appellant’s surplus holding by reason of the Restoration Act.      In the  premises, the  appeals are allowed to the above extent.  The   matter  is   remanded  to  the  Surplus  Land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

Determination Tribunal  for a  fresh  determination  of  the appellant’s ceiling  holding in  the light  of what  we have stated above. There will, however, be no order as to costs.