STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. versus DR. ARVIRAH POULOSE (DEAD)

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 856 · Decided: 25-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
v. 
DR. ARVIRAH POULOSE (DEAD) 
SEPTEMBER 25, 1992 
B 
[R.M. SAHA!, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
Kera/a Land Reforms Ac4 1963 : 
Sections 82, 83 and 84-Detennination of Ceiling area--Voluntary 
C transfer of land after publication of the Bill-Exclusion of-Whether valid. 
D 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Heading of a Section-Not Conclusive of interpreting a provision--
Could be taken help of in understanding the provision. 
The family of the declarant-Respondent had 20.46 acres of land out 
of which 8 acres was exempted land. Since ceiling limit was 12 acres, an 
area of 46 cents was found surplus by the Land Board as per the 
provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The Respondent challenged 
E 
the order before the High Court and it determined the total al"ea of land 
held by the declarant as on 1st June, 1970, the material date, to be the 
total area minus the area which was transferred between 1963 and 1970. 
It held that since the declarant family had only 20.46 acres of which neal"ly 
14 acres had been transferred, only 7 acres remained, the ceiling area 
F 
being 12 acres, the transaction was valid to that extent and invalid to the 
extent of 2 acres .. The two figures arrived at, that is 7 acres and 2 acres 
were added together and as it did not exceed 12 acres, the declarant was 
held to be possessed of no surplus land. 
Aggrieved against the High Court's judgment, the State Government 
G preferred the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. To cover up the delay between introduction of the Kerala 
Land Reforms Bill, 1963 and the imposition of ceiling limit in 1970 and 
H to avoid any effort on the part of owners to escape the provisions of the 
856 
STATEOFKERALA v. DR.ARVIRAH 
857 
Act, Section 84 by a non obstante clause declared, all voluntary transfers A 
effected after the publication of the said Bill to be invalid. Effect of the 
statutory prohibition was that all such land was deemed by operation of 
law, to belong to the declarant on 1st June, 1970 thus liable to be included 
in his area for determination of ceiling limit. Any other construction 
would defeat the provisions of the Act and nullify the objective it sought B 
to achieve. Exceptions to such inclusion have been provided in the Section 
itself. Nature of the provision is clear from the heading which reads 
"certain voluntary transfers to be null and voiif'. Although heading of the 
Section is, normally, not conclusive for interpreting a provision but it can 
be taken help of for understanding it. The word 'null and void' does not C 
appear to have been used anywhere but when the section says that such 
transactions are Invalid then the nature of Invalidity having been indi· 
cated in the beading to be null and void it cannot· be taken as valid. If 
some transactions bas been statutorily declared to be null and void then 
It does not survive. The invalidity attaches only for purposes of determln· 
Ing ceiling area of a declarant. So far as Land Reforms Act is concerned, D 
or atleast so far as the operation of Chapter III thereof Is concerned, any 
voluntary transfer as provided in sub section (1) of Section 84 cannot have 
any other meaning except that such transaction is invalid and it cannot 
be excluded from consideration while determining the ceiling area of the 
declarant. [859 C·H; 860 A-Bl 
E 
2. Instead of one determination the High Court proceeded to make 
determination twice. First It determined the ceiling area excluding the 
area covered by sale deed. Aller arriving at this it proceeded to determine 
if the area covered by sale deed was in excess of ceiling limit. Such was 
neither the ratio of the Full Bench decision relied on by it, nor does the 
provision permit such exclusion. [860 D·E] 
Kesven Nambooderi v, State of Kerala, 1970 KlJ 42 and Ramanatha 
Reddiar v. Ta/uk Land Board, 1985 Kerala Law Times 412, referred to. 
3. The question as Co wbr.ther the voluntary transfers were in fact 
gill deeds which were liable to be excluded while determining ceiling area 
of the declarant in view of sub-section (1) of Section 84 of the Act was not 
examined by the High Court as it was inclined to grant relief on assuming 
F 
G 
the transfers to he sale deeds. The High Court is therefore directed to H 
858 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
decide this question afresh. [860 G·H; 861-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2619 of 
1982. 
From t

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