STATE OF KERALA.AND ORS. versus K.A. GANGADHARAN

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 960 · Decided: 27-10-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
n 
960 
STATE OF KERALA.AND ORS. 
v. 
KA.GANGADHARAN 
October 27, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C. J. M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Kera/a Land Reforms Act 1964-Sec .. 81, 83, 84, 85, SSA and 86--Volun-
tary transfers made after notified date whether valid. 
The respondent held 28.4 acres of land and, therefore, filed a return under 
Section 85(a) of the Kerala -Land Reforms Act, 1964. In the return, 
)le 
showed his family as consisting of himself, his wife and _3 children. Section 
84 of the Act provided that all voluntary transfers efiec;ted after publication of 
the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, · 1963, except certain transfers . which 
were 
excepted shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of 
the Act and invalid. The Act was amended by Act 35 of 1969 which came 
into fore~ on 1-1-1970. By virtue of-the said amendment, 1-1-1970 was de-
clared as the notified date. Section 83 provides 
that \vith 
effect from the 
notified date D.o person shall be entitled to own,. hold or to possess land in 
excess of certain acres of land. Section 85(1) provides tha_t any person hold-
ing l<ind in excess on notified dab shall surrender the excess. 
Section 85 and 
SSA are the sections la}'ing do\Vll the procedure for surrender of the excess 
land. Section· 86 provides that on determination of the excess . land under 
section 85 the same ·will vest in the State. On 1-1-1970, the respondent had one 
major-child and tw()I minor children. One_ minor child attained the age of 
majority in 1971 and another attained majority in 1973. In March, 
1973, 
3 gift deeds were executed one in favour -of each one of the children. The 
respondent was called upon to hand over the excess land on the ground that 
the tritnsfers executed after 1-1-1970 in favour of the children who were minor 
on 1-1-1970 will be ignored and the land will be treated as land owned by the 
respondent. The respondent ·filed his. objections and contended that he and 
his wife were the ··only members of the family and that if the transfers were 
=-excepted he did not hold land in) excess of the ceiling. The Land Board came 
to the conclusion that out of the 28.4 acres of land held by respoildents 3.9 
acres were exempted under section 81 and that the land measuring 3.8 acres· 
gifted to the major child was a.valid gift and in ad4ition. the respondent was 
entitled to hold 12 acres of land. He came to the conclusioti. that the respon-
dent was holding excess land to the extent of 8.78 acres. 
The respondents 
filed a Revision Petition in the High Court which allo"'ed the same. 
In an appeal by Special Leave the respondent contended : 
(1) Section 83 is relevant only for fixing ceil~g. It does not say that 
a person or a family loses his title on the notified date. 
(2) Donees were not minors on the date of gift. That would not ~ns­
titute the members Of the family. 
.. -
., 
• 
•
\ 
KERALA V. K. A. GANGADHARAN (Ray, C.J.) 
961 
(3) Gifts in the present case are saved by the last exception to section 
A 
84 which permitted gifts to any person out of natural love and 
affection or, at any rate, they are saved by Amendment Act 17 of 
1972 by which the exception to Section 
84 was made 
effective 
from 16-8-1968, in favour of transfers by way of gifts in favour 
of son or daughter or other near relations. 
( 4) Sections 85 & 85A lay down the procedure for surrendering the 
B 
excess land. Section 86 vests the excess land in the State. 
The 
0 
vesting takes place after the procedure under sections 85 and 85A 
is over and till then the respondent was the legal owner and could 
have and in fact validly gifted the land in question. 
The 
:ftipellant~ contended : 
(1) The gifts made after 1-1-1970 were not saved by exception to 
C 
section 84. 
(2) The view taken by the Single Judge 
has 
been over-ruled by a 
Division Bench and Full Bench of the same High Col!lft. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : ( 1) The provisions of the Act clearly establish the dominant legisla-
tive intent of the imposition of the ceiling on land holdings and 
the consequential obligation to surrender land 
owned or hold 
in 
excess of the ceiling area on the notified date, namely, 1-1-1970. 
Section 84 was enacted because the Legislature anticipated transfers 
with a view to circumvent the provisions of law. Transfers between 
15-8-1963 and 1-1-1.970 will be valid if within the exceptions pro-
vided 
by section 84. 
Transfers made after 1-1-1970 even of the 
excepted var

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