Appeals Nos 907 90974
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 27 3 73 of the Kerala High Court in OP Nos
375 37773 respectively
CIVIL APPEAL No 135475 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 9 7 75 of the Kerala High Court in CRP No 94974
CIVIL APPEAL No 135575 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19 6 75 of the Kerala High Court in CRP 
No 61174
MM Abdul Advocate Genera1 for the State of Kerala and KM K Nair for the Appellants in CAs
907 90974 for rr
in CAs
18541855 75
TS Krishnamoorthy lyer and PK Pillai for the Appel lants in
1354 135575
Miss Lily Thomas for the Respondents in CAs
908 90974
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL J
Civil Appeals Nos 907 908 and 909 of 1974 are by the State of Kerala and the Land Board Trivan drum
They are directed against a common judgment of the Kerala High Court dated July 27 1973
Civil Appeals Nos
1354 and 1355 of 1975 are by petitioners who had
applied for revision of the orders of the Taluk Land Board Ala thur dated June 11 1974 and April 27 1974
High Court dismissed the revision petitions by two separate judgments dated July 9 1975 and June 18 1975
All the appeals are by special leave
We have heard them together at the instance
of the learned counsel for the parties and will examine them in a common judgment
The controversy in all the cases relates to the
appli cation of certain provisions of the KeraIa Land Reforms Act 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Act to the impugned voluntary transfers of Kayal lands
The State of Kerala feels aggrieved because the High Court has taken the view that the transfers made between September 15 1963 and January 1 1970 had to be recognised and Kayal lands comprised therein excluded in reckoning the ceiling area and the excess lands to be surrendered after January 1 1970
 The grievance of the other two appellants is that their revision petitions were dismissed even though the gift deeds in their favour were valid and did not fall within the mischief of section 8411 of the Act
We shall examine these
points of controversy but before doing
so it may be mentioned that the validity of certain provisions
of the Act was also challenged  in the High Court in the three petitions which were disposed of by the common judgment dated July 27 1973 but the High Court upheld them
There is no such controversy before us as the Act and the Acts which have amended it have been specified in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution
It may also be men tioned that we have  not had the advantage of hearing any one on behalf of the respondents 275 in Civil Appeals Nos
907 to
909 of 1974 as Miss Lily Thomas who represented the respondents in Civil Appeals Nos 908 and 909 informed the Court at the commencement of the arguments that they were not interested in the contro versy
While examining the petitions which are the subject matter of appeals Nos
907 to 909 of 1974 the High Court thought it sufficient to refer only to the facts of original petition No 283 of 1973
That case is not before us but that would not matter as the appeals can be disposed of without reference to the details of that case
It will be sufficient to say that the petitioner in that case was MTJ Joseph and the controversy centered round a settle ment deed exhibit P 8 made by him in favour of his children on June 15 1957
The appellants in the three appeals Nos 907 909 are MTJ Joseph s children
As has been stated the High Court examined the consti tutional validity of the provisions of the Act and upheld them
It next examined the question whether lands in excess of the ceiling area were in the lawful or permissive occupation of the petitioners in the petition before the High Court with reference to the argument that in view of the terms of exhibit RI by which some of the excess lands were assigned to the holder the occupation commenced with an implied permission on payment of the state dues
The High Court did not however think it proper to
express its final views on that aspect of the matter as it found that certain proceedings were pending before the authorities concerned
It therefore left the matter after giving the direction that the Land Board will not pursue the pro ceedings in respect of those lands until the matter was finally decided in the pending proceedings
So also the High Court left the question regarding the ownership of the lands which had been conveyed by the settlement deed of 1957 for investigation and decision by the Land Board
The High Court however proceeded to examine the valid ity of certain transfers of lands between September 15 1963 and January 1 1970 with reference to the relevant provisions of the Act and held as follows  Broadly stated the effect of section 84 is to invalidate transfers effected by a person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area after the date of publication of the Land Reforms Bill 15 9 1963
That being the object of the section in order to determine whether the transfer was in excess of the ceiling area what is material is the law relating to ceiling area on the date of the transfer and not the law regarding celling area on the date of the acquisition or any date subsequent to the transfer
 It therefore held that there was no justification for treating the alienations effected after Septem ber 15 1963 and before January 1 1970 as having been invalidated by reason of the subsequent amend ments in the law when they were lawful and valid under the law relating to ceiling area at the time when they were made
 The High Court also examined the questions relating to the grant of compensa tion and improvements but they do not arise for consideration before us
276 The only question which has been pressed for our consid eration by the Advocate General on behalf of the appel lants is that relating to the validity of the transfers of Kayal lands between September 15 1963 and January 1 1970
The writ petitioners in the High Court urged that they were exempt under section 81 1 1 of the Act and could not be held to be invalid with effect from January 1 1970 because of the subsequent amendment to the Act and included in their ceiling area
The term ceiling area has been defined in section 23 of the Act to mean the extent of land specified in section 82 as the ceiling area and there is no controversy about its extent or content
Section 83 of the Act prohibits the holding of lands in excess of the ceiling area with effect from January 1 1970
which had been notified by the govern ment in the gazette as the date from which the prohibition was to be effective
Section 84 declares certain voluntary transfers to be null and void
The section as it stood before the amendments road as follows
Section 84
Certain voluntary transfers to be null and void
Notwithstanding anything con tained in any law for the time being in force all voluntary transfers effected after the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 in the Gazette otherwise than i by way of partition or ii on account of natural love and affection or iii in favour of a person who was a tenant of the holding before the 27th July 1960 and contin ued to be so till the date of transfer or iv in favour of a religious charitable or educational institution of a public nature solely for the purposes of the institution by a family or any member thereof or by an adult unmarried person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area shall be deemed to be trans fers calculated to defeat the provisions of this Act and shall be invalid  There is a proviso to the section with which we are not concerned
The validity of the transfers had therefore to be examined with reference to September 15 1963 which was the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 in the gazette
The section was amended by Act 35 of 1969 by which the existing section was renumbered as sub section 1 and a sub section was added as subsection 2 which dealt with voluntary transfers effected by any person other than a family or any member thereof or by an adult unmar ried person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area
The amendment could not therefore be said to have any bearing on the present controversy
The section was however again amended by section 15 of Act 17 of 1972
It inter alia omitted clause ii of 277 sub section 1 and provided that the omission shah be deemed to have been made with effect from the 16th day of August 1968
This had the effect of taking away the excep tion in favour of voluntary transfers on account of natural love and affection
But it is not the case of any one before us that there was any such transfer in respect of Civil Appeals Nos
907 to 909 so that amendment also could not be said to have any material bearing on the controversy relating to these appeals
The fact therefore remains that by virtue of section 84 of the Act all voluntary transfers of land effected after September 15 1963 date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 in the gazette were invalid as they were to be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provi sions of the Act
So even if a transfer was found to have been made after September 15 1963 but before January 1 1970 date notified under section 83 prohibiting the owning or holding or to possessing under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area the ceiling area for purposes of section 83 and bringing about the surrender of the excess land under section 85 had to be determined with reference to the position as on January 1 1970 as that was the date notified under section 83
The reason is that the prohibition of section 83 applied with reference to that date and that in turn required a surrender of the excess land as on that date
Section 85 is therefore an important section
It was amended by Act 35 of of 1971 and Act 17 of 1972 but there was no change in its basic provision that when a person owned or held land in excess of the ceiling area on the date notified under section 83 namely January 1 1970 he had to surrender it in accordance with the other provisions of the section
The crucial date for determining and surrendering the surplus land was therefore January 1 1970 and not any earlier date but the validity of any voluntary transfer effected after September 15 1963 which was the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 had still to be examined with reference to September 15 1963 in view of the clear requirement of section 84
This was the scheme of the Act
We have made a reference to section 84 which clearly pro vides that all voluntary transfers of land effected after September 15 1963 shall be deemed to be transfers calculat ed to defeat the provisions of the Act and shah be void
It has not been urged that the impugned transfers fell under any of the exceptions provided by section 84
There can be no doubt that any transfer made after September 15 1963 and before January 1 1970 would be invalid unless it could be shown to have been saved by any other provision of the Act
In this connection section 81 of the Act is important for it prescribes the exemptions to the provisions of Chapter III
Clause 1 of subsection 1 of section 81 specifically provides that the provisions of the Chapter shall not apply to 1 kayal padasakharams of Kuttanad area specified in Schedule IV so long as such padasak haramas are used for the cultivation of paddy or such other crops as the Government may by notifi cation in the Gazette specify
 278 It is not in controversy that the Kayal lands which are the subject matter of these appeals are of the category mentioned in clause 1 of sub section 1 of section 81
They were therefore exempt from the restriction on ownership pre scribed by the various sections of Chapter III referred to above
So even though by virtue of section 84 of the Act all voluntary transfers effected after September 15 1963 date of publica tion of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 in the Gazette were invalid the transfers made in re spect of Kayal padasakharams in appeals Nos
907 909 could not be held to be invalid for the simple reason that they were exempt from the provisions of Chapter III
That exemption was no doubt withdrawn by section 65 of Act 35 of 1969 which amended the Act but it is not disputed before us that the section was not brought into force until January 1 1970
The voluntary transfers made between Septem ber 15 1963 and January 1 1970 were therefore valid and there is no force in the argument of the Advocate General that the amendment brought about by section 65 of Act 35 of 1969 should be given retrospective effect from April 1 1964 as sections 82 and 84 of the Act were brought into force from that date
There is also no force in the other argument of the Advocate General that section 84 had the effect of invalidating the transfers effected after September 15 1963 for that was the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill in the gazette
The argument overlooks the fact that as has been mentioned Kayal lands were exempt from the provisions of Chapter III until as late as January 1 1970
In this view of the matter Pritam Singh Chahil vs State of Punjab and others1 cannot avail the appellants
The amend ment cannot also be said to be curative or merely declaratory of the previous law
The facts of Chanan Singh and another vs Jai Kaur2 cited by the Advocate General were quite different inasmuch as in the appeals before us the amendment which was made by section 65 of Act 35 of 1969 was nei ther curative nor merely declaratory
As has been stated it inter alia omitted clause 1 of section 81 of the Act which exempted the Kayal padasakharams which are the subject matter of the present controversy from the application of the provisions of Chapter III of the Act
It is well settled that a statute is not to be read retrospec tively except of necessity
There is no such necessity in the cases before us for the Legisla ture decided to exempt the aforesaid Kayal lands from the operation of the restrictions and even though amending Act 35 of 1969 was promulgated on December 17 1969 section 65 thereof which withdrew the exemption was not brought into force until January 1 1970
Thus there is no force in Appeals Nos 907 908 and 909 and they are dismissed
This leaves Civil Appeals Nos 1354 and 1355 for consid eration
The transfers of lands in these cases were admit tedly made during the period January 1 1970 to November 2 1972
As such they were not exempt from the restrictions of the provisions of Chapter 1  2  279 III of the Act
Section 84 of the Act would be attracted to these transfers and it is futile to contend that this would not be so because the transfers were affected on account of natural love and affection within the meaning of clause ii of the exceptions provided by section 84 because the exemption to that effect was taken away by Act 17 of 1972
Section 15 of that Act specifically stated that clause shall be and shall be deemed to have been omitted with effect from the 16th day of August 1968 Moreover as the High Court has pointed out the impugned transfers were in favour of the donor s grand children by his daughter who was alive and could not be said to fall within the exempted category because of the other amendment made in section 84 of the Act by section 15 of Act 17 of 1972 with effect from the 16th day of August 1968 which restricted the exemp tion to gifts made in favour of the donor s son or daughter or the son of daughter of his predeceased son or daughter
There is thus no force in these two appeals also and they are dismissed
In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases we leave the parties to pay and bear their own costs
PBR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Section 84 of Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 declares that all voluntary transfers of land effected after the publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill on September 15 1963 shall be null and void
Clause ii of this section while provided an exemption in respect of transfers made on account of natural love and affection was omitted in 1972 with retrospective effect from August 16 19 68
Section 8111 exempts kayal padasakharams of Kuttanad area from the restrictions on ownership prescribedby Chapter III of the Act
By an amendment of 1969 this exemption was with drawn but the amending section was not brought into force until January 1 1970
There were two sets of petitions before the High Court
In one set the High Court held that 1 voluntary transfers of kayal lands effected between September 15 1963 and January 1 1970 were lawful and valid and in the other 2 that certain transfers by way of gift were invalid
In the first set of appeals to this Court the State contended that the 1969 amendment should be given retrospec tive effect from April 1 1964 ie the date on which section 84 was brought into force and in the second set the donees contended that the transfers were saved because they were effected on account of natural love and affection
Dismissing all the appeals HELD 1a Even though by virtue of section 84 all volun tary transfers effected after September 15 1963 were invalid transfers made in respect of kayal lands could not be held to be invalid because they were exempt from the provisions of Chapter Iii
Though that exemption was with drawn in 1969 that amendment was not brought into force until January 1 1970 Voluntary transfers made between September 15 1963 and January 1 1970 were therefore valid
278 B C b The 1969 amendment was neither curative nor declara tory of the previous law
It merely omitted cl
1 from section 81
A statute is not to be read retrospectively except of necessity
There is no such necessity in the instant cases for the legislature decided to exempt kayal lands from the operation of the restrictions and the 1969 amend ment withdrawing the exemption was not brought into force until January 1 1970 278 E F Pritam Singh Chahil vs State of Punjab and others  and Channan Singh and another vs Jai Kaur  held inapplicable
2 In the other set of cases the impugned transfers were in favour of the donor s grand children by his daugh ter who was alive and were effected between January 1 1970 and November 2 1972
It was held that it was futile to contend that section 84 would not be attracted to the transfers on the ground that they were effected on account of natural love and affection within the meaning of the exemption provided by section 84 because the exemption was taken away by Act 17 of 1972 which specifically stated that that clause shall be and shall be deemed to have been omitted with effect from the 16th August 1968 and they could not be said to fall within the exempted category because of the amendment made in section 84 in 1972 restricting the exemption to gifts made in favour of a donor s son or daughter or the son of a daughter of his predeceased son or daughter
279 A C 274