LexARUL NADAR versus AUTHORISED OFFICER, LAND REFORMS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ARULNADAR v. AUTHORISED OFFICER, LAND REFORMS SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 [M.M. PUNCHHI, C.J., G.B. PATTANAIK AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] Tenancy and Land Laws : Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961: Section 21-A-Provided for transfer holiday for a limited period-Said section inserted in Parent Act during pendency of proceedings- Applicability-Held: S. 21-A does apply to such pending proceedings-T.N Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970. A B c Section 21-A-Non-obstante clause-Held : No justification for giving D a restrictive meaning-S. 21-A gives overriding effect to S.22 or any other provision of the Act or any other law for the time being in force. Interpretation of Statutes : Basic rules-Literal construction-Intent or object of Act-Examination E of-Necessity-Held : Not necessary when the language of a statute is unambiguous. The appellant was the owner of agricultural lands and after the T.N. Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 came into force he purchased some more land. The Authorised Officer took into consideration F the subsequent acquisition made by the appellant and determined that he had surplus land. The appellant-landowner filed an objection contending that two settlement deeds were executed in favour of two minor sons; that these transactions ~ere valid under Section 21-A of the Act and, therefore, the G lands so transferred should be exclud~d from the computation of surplus land owned by the appellant. Section 21-A was inserted into the Act by the T.N. Act 17 during the pendency of the proceedings under the Principal Act The Authorised Officer rejected the. objection and the appeal was also dismissed. The High Court.dismissed the Revision on the grounds that H I 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A Section 21-A was not applicable to pending proceedings under the Principal Act. Hence this appeal. B On behalf of th2 respondent it was contended that the object of T.N. Act 17 was to reduce the ceiling area and, therefore, if Section 21-A were applicable to pending proceedings then the said object would be frustrated. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 21-A of the T.N. Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 does apply to a proceeding which was pending on the date this Section was inserted in the Parent Act even though the proceeding C might have been initiated under the Parent Act itself. Therefore, the High -' Court committed error in holding that Section 21-A will have no application as the ceiling proceeding had been initiated under the Parent Act. [6-C-D) V. Gopal Reddiar v. State ofT.N., (1995] Supp. 2 SCC 481; Susi/a Devi Ammal v. State of Madras, [1993) 1 SCC 462 and MK. Harihara Iyer v. D Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Tirunelveli, [1990) Supp. SCC 182, relied on. A.G. Varadarajulu v. State of T.N., [1998] 4 SCC 231, relied; on .. 1.2. The contention of the respondentthat the object of the Act being ~ E to further reduce the ceiling area, Section 21-A, if made applicable to the pending proceeding, then the said object would be frustrated, cannot be sustained inasmuch as when the language of a statute is unambiguous, in interpreting the provisions thereof, it is not necessary to look into the legislative intent or the object of the Act. [6-D-E) p State of U.P. v. Vijay Anand Maharaj, (1963) l SCC 1, referred to. Sussex Peerage's case, (1844) 11 CI and F 85, p. 143, referred to. 2. There would be no justification to give any restrictive meaning to Section 21-A where the legislature indicated that the aforesaid provision is notwithstanding anything contained in Section 22 or in any other provision G of the Act or in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to give any restrictive meaning to Section 21-A of the Act. [6-H; 7-A-B) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9of1991. H From the Judgment and Order dated 3 L3 .89 of the Madras High Court ARUL NA DAR v. AUTHORISED OFFICER, LAND REFORMS [G.B. PA TT ANAIK, J.] 3 in C.R.P. No. 3688of1982. A - j R. Sunderavardhan and K.K. Mani for the Appellant. M.A. Krishnamurthy, (A. Mariarputham) for Arputham and Aruna & Co. for the Respondent. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.B. PA TT ANAIK, J. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the provisions of Section 21-A of the Tamil Nadu Land ' Reforms (Fixat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.