Holding

Because the agreement was not registered, the owner was not divested of title, interest or right in the land, rendering the purported transfer ineffective under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act.

Summary

The State of Gujarat initiated proceedings under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 to determine the ceiling and surplus area of a parcel of land. The respondent claimed that an agreement dated 14 October 1969 had transferred 30 acres to his mother, a transfer that had been recorded through mutation on 15 September 1971. The Court examined whether such an agreement amounted to a transfer within the meaning of Section 8(1) of the Act, which presumes transfers made after 15 January 1959 to be intended to defeat the Act unless proved otherwise. It also considered the effect of non‑registration of the agreement, which under Section 17 of the Registration Act is a compulsorily registerable document. The Court held that because the agreement was not registered, the owner had not been divested of title, interest or right in the land, and therefore the transfer could not be treated as effective under the ceiling law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the ceiling authority to compute the ceiling area in accordance with this finding. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the agreement dated 14 October 1969 constitutes a transfer under Section 8(1) of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 and is presumed to be made to defeat the Act.
Whether non‑registration of the agreement under Section 17 of the Registration Act divests the owner of title, interest and right in the land.
Whether the ceiling authority should recompute the ceiling area in view of the Court's finding on the validity of the transfer.

Legislation cited

Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960s. 8(1)
Registration Acts. 17

Subjects

agricultural land ceilingtransfer of landcompulsory registrationsection 8(1) presumptionsection 17 registrationmutationceiling area computationGujarat

Judgment

A STATE OF GUJARAT

"·
NARGES K. PANTHAKY

NOVEMBER 2, 1995

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, J.J.j

Gujarat A1,"iu1lt11ral Lands Ceiling Act, JO(,():

S.8( 1}-Detem1inarion of Ceiling area and swplus area-Agreement to ;

C tran.1fer title in favour of mothe1~Since such a&"·eemellt is a compulsmily
registerable document under S. 17 of Registration Act, non-Registration there-
of; the owner is not divested of the 1igh1 and Litle-Maller remilled to ceiling
aulhmity to compute the ceiling area-Registration Act, S.17.

While proceedings were initiated under the Gujarat Agricultural
D Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, the respondents claimed that under an agree-
ment, 30 acres of land was transferred in favour of the respondent's
mother which was dnly recognised by mutation proceedings. The
respondent's plea was accepted by the authorities and the High Court.
Hence this appeal by the State Government.
E
Allowing: the appeal, this Court

B ELD : J. By operation of Section 17 of the Registration Act,
agreen1ent transferring title is a compulsorily registerable document.
Since it has not hl'cn registered, the oWnt'r has not been divested of the
1=- rig:ht 1 title and intert·st in the land and thu~ continued to be the owner of
the land under the AL! [736-B]

2. 'fhe 111atter is ren1itted to the ceiling authorit)' to ccnnpute the
ceiling urea keeping in vie\V n·hal hus been held in this order. The
G antiHn·ities 'rnuld takt' further action accor<ling to la\V. [736-C]

CIVIL APPEL.LATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10481 of
199'i.

From !he Judgment and Order dated 14.7.83 of the Gujarat High
H Court in S.C.A. No. 2482 of Jl/81.
734 .
STATE"· NARGES K. PANTHAKY 735

Dushyant Dave and Ms. H. Wahi for the Appellant. A

R.P. Bhatt Ms. Neclam Kalsi and Vimal Dave, for the Rcspondcnl.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. B

The proceedings were initiated under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands
Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short, "the Act") to determine the ceiling area and
the surplus area. The respondent claimed that under an agreement dated
October 14, 1969, thirty acres of land had been transferred in favour of the
respondent's mother which was duly recognised by mutation proceedings
c
dated 15.9.1971. The question is whether it is to defeat the provisions of
the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act reads thus :

· "8. Transfers or partitions made after 15th .January 1959 but before
commencement of this Act. (1) Where after 15th day of January, D
1959 but before the commencement of this Act or after 24th day
of January, 1971, but before the specified date, any person has
transferred whether by sale, gift, mortgage, with possession, ex-
change lease. surrender or otherwise or partitioned any land held
by him, then notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the
time being in force such transfer or partition shall, unless it is
E
proved to the contrary, be deemed to have been made in anticipa-
tion in order to defeat the object of this Act. Where such transfer
or partition was made after 15th day of .January 1959 but before
the comn1enccmcnt of this Act or in order to defeat the object of
the An1c1HJing Act of 1972 \Vlicrc such transfer \Vas n1a<lc after F
24th day of .January, 1971 hut bcfnrc the specified date."

A reading thereof \vould clearly indicate that nnt\vithstanding any-
thing contained in any la\\' for the time being in force such transfer or
partition shall, unless it is proved to the contrary, he <lec1ne<l to have been
made in anticipation in order to defeat the nbyct oft he Act. The question (J
is whether this agrcen1cnt is a transfer. Shri R.P. Bhatl. learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondent, has taken us through the agrccn1cnt
\vhich had specifically stated that right, title and interest of the land \Vas
conferred fnr tht: lirst tiine in favour of the rcspondcnt under this Jocu-
n1cnt. Therehy, the right title and inter~~!. hL:ld hy the O\Vncr of the land is H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A sought to be extinguished. In turn it is sought to be conferred in favour of
the respondent for the first time under the document. By operation of
Section 17 of the Registration Act, it is a compulsorily registerable docu-
ment. Since it has not been registered, the owner has not been divested of
the right, title and interest in the land and thus continued to be the owner
of the land under the Act.
B
The authorities and the High ·Court have not appropriately con-
sidered this question. The appeal is allowed accordingly and the mater is
remitted to the ceiling authority to compute the ceiling area keeping in
view what has been held in this order. The authorities would take further
C action according to law. No costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.

•·