BHUPENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 21-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BHUPENDRA SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
B 
Land Laws: 
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 : 
Sections 3 and 8-Ceiling area-Detennination of-Land purchased from 
C 
tribal subsequently restored on the coming into force of the Maharashtra 
Restoration of land to Scheduled Tribe Act, 1974-Dimunition of area taking 
place by thmst of another statut~Held : restoration of land not a "transfer" 
within the meaning of Expln. to Section 8-Such land not liable to be 
included in the ceiling holdings-The Maharashtra Restoration of land to D 
Scheduled Tribe Act, 1974. 
The appellant had purchased land from a tribal under a registered 
sale-deed. The Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes 
Act, 1974 which came into force on 1st November, 1975, provided for 
restoration of land to a tribal transferor. The Authority under the Res-
E 
toration Act passed an order and directed that the land which had' been 
purchased by the appellant from the Tribal be restored to his heirs. 
Subsequently, an enquiry under the Maharashtra Agricultural 
Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 was held for determining the ceiling 
area of the appellant's family unit. The surplus Land Determination F 
Tribunal held that the Lands which were restored to the Tribal formed a 
part of the Holdings of the appellant's family unit at the commencement 
date i.e.; 2nd October, 1975 under the Ceiling Act and had to be included 
in the holding of the appellant's family unit. 
This view had been upheld by the Revenue Tribunal. The writ peti-
tion filed by the appellant challenging the decision of the Tribunal was 
dismissed ty the High Court. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the 
appellant preferred the present appeal. 
G 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that since the lands had H 
491 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
been restored to the tribal under the provision to the Restoration Act 
before the enquiry under th_e Ceiling Act, the lands could not be considered 
as part of his holding. 
B 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to 
Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 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 provides for the Authority's taking possession of 
C 
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 
D prior to the coming i_nto effect of the Restoration Act, cannot be accepted. 
The lands have, therefore, been rightly held to be a part of the appellant's 
holding. [496-D-E] 
Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., [1985] 
E 
1 sec 479, referred to. 
F 
1.2. The restoration of lands under the Restoration Act does not fall 
within the definition of "transfer" under the Explanation to Section 8 of the 
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling. on Holdings) Act, 1961. 
[497-A-B] 
2.1. 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 
G Restoration Act is for cancellation of transfer and restoration of land to 
the Tribal. The scheme is more akin 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". The land which is so restored by reason of 
the said Act is, therefore, not covered by the definition of "transfer" in 
H section 8. Hence section 10(1) also will not apply to such land. [497-E-F] 
BHUPENDRASINGHv. STATE 
493 
2.2. Under section 16(2) of the Ceiling Act, a person or family unit is A 
entitled to select the lands he or it wishes to retain upto the ceiling area. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.