THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THANJAVUR & ANR. versus S. NAGANATHA AYYAR

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 1121 · Decided: 04-05-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
-
• 
• 
1121 
THE AUTIIORISED OFFICER, THANJAVUR & ANR. 
v. 
S. NAGANATHA AYYAR 
May 4, 1979 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
The Tamll Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961-
Ss. 7 and 22-Scope of-Sale, gift, transfer etc. of land made between certain 
dates void-Bona fide transfers if exempt by s. 22. 
Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) 
Act 1961, provides that on and from the date of commencement of the Act no 
person shall, except as otherwise provided in the Act, but subject to the pro-
visions of Chapter VIlI, be entitled to hold land in 'excess of the ceiling area. 
Section 22 provides that where on or after the date of commencement of the 
Act (6th April, 1960) but before the notified date (2nd October, 1962) any 
A 
B 
c 
person has transferred any l•nd held by him by sale, gift etc. the Authorued 
D 
Officer within whose Jurisdiction such land holding of the major part thereof 
is situated may, after notice to such person and other persons affected by such 
transfer or partition and after such inquiry as he thinks fit to make, declare 
the transfer or partition to be void if he finds that the transfer or the partition, 
as the case may be, defeats any of the provisions of the Act. 
The alienations in all the cases took many forms ranging from 3tridl1ana to 
bona fide !ale and they were executed between the date of commencemnt ot. 
the Act and notified date. 
The Land Tribunal held that the alienations were 
void because but for the alienations the holders would have had the lands in 
excess of the ceiling prescribed by the Act. 
On the interpretation of s. 22 of the Act, the ){igh Court was of tile view 
thn.t the section covered only those sham, nominal and bogus transfers which 
are intended to defeat the provisions of the Act and which are 
inconsistent 
with the object provid'ed in s. 7. It was also held that transactions entered into 
in anticipation of the Ceiling Act would not be hit by the provisions prevent· 
ing such transfers except where they were mala fide or colourable; and that 
the word "defeat" in s. 22 should be taken as having been used to import a 
sinister motive. It was therefore held that under s. 22 the Authorised Officer 
is entitled to declare as void only those transfers which are skam and nominal 
entered into with the avowed object of defeating the provisions of the Act with-
out any bona fide intention to transfer title. 
HELD: (I) If any transfer defeats the'provisions of the Act by reducing 
the extent of surplus land in excess of the ceiling available from any person 
such transaction, bona fide or not, is void in the matter of computation of the 
permissible area and the surplus area. 
The Authorised Officer is within hia 
p:ower if he ignores it as void for purposes of s. 22, s. 7 and other ceiling rela-
ted provioions. 
[l132C] 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
1122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 3 S.C.R. 
{2) Looking at the words of s. 22 in the light of the scheme of prohibition 
of transfers to preserve the surplus land for distribution there is no justification 
for importing into s. 22 more than its words convey. The section says what it 
means. 
A simple scan of the provision reveals that any transfer, gift, sur-
render, settlement or other alienations may be declared void by the Authorized 
Officer, if he finds that the transfer or the partition defeats any of the provisions 
of this Act. 
fhe trichotomy is obvious : There must be a transfer or other 
alienation; it must have taken place during 1he period mentioned in the section; 
it must have the effect of defeating any of the provisions of the Act. If these 
three elements are present, the Authoris'ed Officer must void the transfer. There 
is no rule for importing a fourth principle that the transfer should be sham, 
nominal or bogus nor is there any additional consideration that if the transfer 
is bona fide for family necessity or other urgency then it is good even though 
it' defeats the provisions of the Act. 
The provision seeks to provide social 
justice for the landless and it defeats the purpose if, by the interpretative pro-
cess, soft justice to large !and~holder. is brought ~bout. [I 130B-D] 
(3) The literal meaning of the section is that any transfer or other aliena-
tion mentiOilfd in it which reduces or impairs the otherwise available extent of 
surplus land beyond the ceiling defeats the provisions of the Act. This is the 
plain meaning of the

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