Supreme Court of India
STATE OF GUJARAT versus NARGES K. PANTHAKY
- Decided
- 2 November 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 734 · 1995 INSC 678
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 735, margin B
The proceedings were initiated under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short, "the Act") to determine the ceiling area and the surplus area. The respondent claimed that under an agreement dated October 14, 1969, thirty acres of land had been transferred in favour of the respondent's mother which was duly recognised by mutation proceedings dated 15.9.1971. The question is whether it is to defeat the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act reads thus :
p. 735, margin B
· "8. Transfers or partitions made after 15th .January 1959 but before commencement of this Act. (1) Where after 15th day of January, 1959 but before the commencement of this Act or after 24th day of January, 1971, but before the specified date, any person has transferred whether by sale, gift, mortgage, with possession, exchange lease. surrender or otherwise or partitioned any land held by him, then notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force such transfer or partition shall, unless it is proved to the contrary, be deemed to have been made in anticipation in order to defeat the object of this Act. Where such transfer or partition was made after 15th day of .January 1959 but before the of this Act or in order to defeat the object of the An1c1HJing Act of 1972 \Vlicrc such transfer after
p. 735, margin C
24th day of .January, 1971 hut bcfnrc the specified date."
p. 735, margin F
A reading thereof \vould clearly indicate that nnt\vithstanding anything contained in any la\\' for the time being in force such transfer or partition shall, unless it is proved to the contrary, he to have been made in anticipation in order to defeat the nbyct oft he Act. The question is whether this agrcen1cnt is a transfer. Shri R.P. Bhatl. learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, has taken us through the agrccn1cnt \vhich had specifically stated that right, title and interest of the land conferred fnr tht: lirst tiine in favour of the rcspondcnt under this Jocu- Therehy, the right title and inter~~!. hL:ld hy the of the land sought to be extinguished. In turn it is sought to be conferred in favour of the respondent for the first time under the document. By operation of Section 17 of the Registration Act, it is a compulsorily registerable document. Since it has not been registered, the owner has not been divested of the right, title and interest in the land and thus continued to be the owner of the land under the Act.
pp. 735–736, margin F
The authorities and the High ·Court have not appropriately considered this question. The appeal is allowed accordingly and the mater is remitted to the ceiling authority to compute the ceiling area keeping in view what has been held in this order. The authorities would take further action according to law. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.
p. 736, margin B