http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

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