LexSHAKUNTLA ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 232 SHAKUNTLA ETC. ETC. STATE ,OF HARYANA February 16, 1979 [P. N. SHINGHAL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] PEPSU 1 cna11cy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, S. 32 FF, whether- applicable to gift of land by non-related donor. f • ' The appellants were persons to whom gifts of agricultural lands were made .,_ before July 30, 1958, for love and affection, by non-related donors. The Reve- --4_ nue authorities decided that these gifts were not protected by s. 32FF of the i PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, as there had been no valu- able "consideration", within the meaning of that section. A Division Bench ot the Haryana High Court upheld the disn1issal of the appellants' writ petition,. by a single Judge of th(lt court. Dismissing the app'eals the Court, HELD : It is the essence of a gift as defined in the Transfer of Property 1\ct, that it should be without "consideration•· of the nature defined in s. 2(d) of the Contract Act, and as section 32FF of the Act saves 'only the transfer vr disposition of land for "consideration" upto the limit specified in it, the gifts under dispute, will not fall within the purview of that section. Any other view of the section would defeat the purpose of Chapter IV-A of the Act, which provides for ceiling on land and acquisition and disposal of surplus area. [234 E, G, H-235 A] James Newton v. Robert Hargreaves, 135 ER 905; distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1829-1831 of 1969. Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 14-1-69 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LP.A. Nos. 256- 258 of 1966. Y. C. Mahajan and Mrs. Urmila Kapur for the Appellant. B. Dutta and R. N. Sachthey for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL, J.-The appellants in these three appeals are aggriev- ed against a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated January 14, 1969, by which the judgment of a learned Single Judge of that Court dismissing their writ petitions was upheld on the ground that the gifts to them did not fall within the purview of the saving clause of section 32FF of the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act. • • ~ • I .. ~ SHAKUNTLA v. HARYANA (Shinghal, !.) 233 ;. ' • • 1 I It is not in dispute that a gift was made in each of these cases before July 30, 1958, and in one case after August 21, 1956 but before July 30, 1958. The donees were not persons who were not related to the donors, and were persons to whom gifts were made of agricultural lands for love and affection. The revenue authorities took the view that the gifts were not transfers of lands of the nature protected by section 32FF of the Act as there was no valuable con- sideration, and mere love and affection was not "consideration" with- in the meaning of that section. As the High Court has upheld that view, the appellants feel aggrieved and have come up in appeal to this Court by special leave. .~ Section 32FF of the Act which deals with certain transfers which are not to affect the surplus area of a landowner provides as follows,- "32FF. Save in the case of land acquired by the State Govermnent under any law for the time being in force or by an heir by inheritance or up to 30th July, 1958 by a landless person, or a small landowner, not being a relation as prescribed of the person making the transfer or disposi- tion of land, for consideration up to an area which with oI without. the area owned or held by him does not in the aggregate exceed the permissible limit no transfer or other disposition of land effected after 21st August, 1956, shall affect the right of the State Govermnent under this Act to the surplus area to which it would be entitled but for such transfer or disposition : Provided that any person who has received . any advan- tage under snch transfer or disposition of land shall be bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it, to the . person from whom he received it." .~-The section therefore provides that no transfer or other disposition of land effected after August 21, 1956, shall affect the rights of the State Government under the Act to the surplus area to which it would be entitled but for such transfer or disposition "save" in the case of land acquired by the State Government under any law for the time being in force, or by an heir by inheritance or up to July 30
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.