Case: Authorised Officer, Thanjavur and Another Vs. S. Naganatha Ayyar

rule or the golden rule, there is danger that in place of those irrelevant criteria, the canons of construction, they have more obviously substituted their own (perhaps more harmful) impressions, views, prejudices or predispositions. Such conflicts between what Parliament intended and what the judges assumed Parliament to have intended have long been appreciated."(Modern Law Review, Vol. 28, 1965 p 525) Those who have reflected on the meaning of meaning have said that words.... "mean" nothing by themselves.. (1). They convey policy and the judge who interprets must seek the intent of the legislature by gaining an insight into this policy and making it manifest through the process of construction. Looking at the words of s. 22 in the light of the scheme, of prohibition of transfers to preserve the surplus lands for distribution, we find no justification for importing into s. 22 more than its words convey. The Section says what it means, nothing more, nothing else. A simple scan of the provision reveals that any transfer, gift, surrender, settlement or other alienation referred to in the Section may be declared void by the Authorised officer "if he finds that the transfer or the partition....defeats any of the provisions of this Act.". The trichotomy is obvious. There must be a transfer or other alienation. It must have taken place during the 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 Authorised of ficer must void the transfer. There is no room for importing a fourth principal that the transfer should be sham, nominal or bogus. Nor indeed 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. We cannot amend the Section or dilute its imperatives, scared by the consequences or moved by extraneous sympathies. Sub-conscious forces and individual prepossessions have a subtle way of entering the interpretative verdict of the judge. We have to be constantly careful to exclude such intrusions. Moreover, when the whole purpose of the Section is, to prevent any alienation which defeats any of the purpose if visions of the Act, it is impermissible to introduce any requirement, other than is mentioned in the Section, as a condition for its operation. Obviously, the provision seeks to provide social justice for the landless and it defeats the purpose if, by the interpretative process, soft Justice to large landholders is brought about. We consider the literal meaning of the Section to be that any transfer or other alienation mentioned in the Section which reduces or impairs the otherwise available extent of surplus land beyond the ceiling "defeats.. the provisions of this Act." This is the plain meaning of the Section which gives no room for doubt or justification for importation of any further condition like sham, bogus etc.A return to the rules of strict construction, when the purpose of the statute needs it, is desirable, especially with a view to give effect A to t he intention of the legislature. We are reminded of Lord Dennings interesting remarks in his recent book "The Discipline of Law" under heading "I am a Portia Man". In justification of his view Russell LJ quoted a passage from Shakespeare. It is worth recording because there are lessons to be drawn from it-as there often are from Shakespeare: I may perhaps be forgiven for saying that it appears to me that Lord Denning MR has acceded to the appeal of Bessanio in the Merchant of Venice. Bessanio "And, I beseech you, Wrest once the law to your authority: To do a great right, do a little wrong. But Portia retorted: "It must not be; there is no power in Venice Can alter a decree established: It will be recorded for a precedent, And many an error, by the same example, Will rush into the State: it cannot be." Then said Russell LJ. I am a Portia man. I cannot believe that Russell LJ would be a Portia man if it meant aligning himself with Shylock-in support of a strict law of penalties which could not be relieved by equity. To be truly a Portia marl The lawyer should follow the way ill which Portia avoided an unjust decree. Not to let the words of the deed be the masters: but so construe them-adapt them as the occasion demands-so as to do what justice and equity require. This is how she turned the tables on Shylock: It is in this denouement that I would follow the example of Portia-I too am a Portia man 10. In the interpretation of s. 22 we too are Portia men. For this reason we reverse the view of the High Court that s. 22 will not apply to nullify any transaction of transfer or partition unless it is further shown that it is sham, nominal or bogus. Nor do we agree with Shri Ramamurthy that even if a Transaction defeats the ceiling provisions, it may still be valid if the transfer is, from an individual point of view, bona fide. The short reply is that from the communitys angle, especially the landless communitys angle hungering for allotment, the alienation, however necessary for the individual, is not bona fide visa-vis the community.Therefore, we allow the appeal in the light of the interpretation we have adopted, restore the tribunals holding and rule that if any transfer defeats the provisions of the Act by reducing the extent of surplus lan d 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. May be, that the transaction may be good for other purposes or may not be. The Authorised officer is within his power if he ignores it as void for purposes of s. 22, s. 7 and other ceiling- related provisions. 11.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Section 22, literally read leads only to one conclusion, that any transfer, bona fide executed or not, is liable to be declared void by the Authorised Officer "if he finds that the transfer defeats any of the provisions of this Act." There is not the slightest doubt t hat severally and cumulatively the provisions of the Act seek to make available the maximum extent of land, in excess of the ceiling, to be vested in Government for fulfilment of its purposes. Chapter II contains a fasciculus of provisions i n this behalf and if any transfer carves out of the surplus area some land, pro tanto, the provisions of the Act are defeated. Indeed, it is not seriously disputed that such will be the conclusion if we do not read into the provisions either the condition that it does not apply to bona fide transfers, as Shri Ramamurthy would have it, or does not apply to any transfers other than sham, nominal or bogus transfers, as the High Court would have it. A policy- oriented interpretation tallies with the literal construction in the present case. The mischief rule in Heydons case and the grammatical construction which is the Golden Rule converge to the same conclusion in the present caseSection 22, literally read leads only to one conclusion, that any transfer, bona fide executed or not, is liable to be declared void by the Authorised Officer "if he finds that the transfer defeats any of the provisions of this Act." There is not the slightest doubt t hat severally and cumulatively the provisions of the Act seek to make available the maximum extent of land, in excess of the ceiling, to be vested in Government for fulfilment of its purposes. Chapter II contains a fasciculus of provisions i n this behalf and if any transfer carves out of the surplus area some land, pro tanto, the provisions of the Act are defeated. Indeed, it is not seriously disputed that such will be the conclusion if we do not read into the provisions either the condition that it does not apply to bona fide transfers, as Shri Ramamurthy would have it, or does not apply to any transfers other than sham, nominal or bogus transfers, as the High Court would have it. A policy- oriented interpretation tallies with the literal construction in the present case. The mischief rule in Heydons case and the grammatical construction which is the Golden Rule converge to the same conclusion in the present caseWe consider the literal meaning of the Section to be that any transfer or other alienation mentioned in the Section which reduces or impairs the otherwise available extent of surplus land beyond the ceiling "defeats.. the provisions of this Act." This is the plain meaning of the Section which gives no room for doubt or justification for importation of any further condition like sham, bogus etc.A return to the rules of strict construction, when the purpose of the statute needs it, is desirable, especially with a view to give effect A to t he intention of the legislature. We are reminded of Lord Dennings interesting remarks in his recent book "The Discipline of Law" under heading "I am a Portia Man"In the interpretation of s. 22 we too are Portia men. For this reason we reverse the view of the High Court that s. 22 will not apply to nullify any transaction of transfer or partition unless it is further shown that it is sham, nominal or bogus. Nor do we agree with Shri Ramamurthy that even if a Transaction defeats the ceiling provisions, it may still be valid if the transfer is, from an individual point of view, bona fide. The short reply is that from the communitys angle, especially the landless communitys angle hungering for allotment, the alienation, however necessary for the individual, is not bona fide visa-vis the community.Therefore, we allow the appeal in the light of the interpretation we have adopted, restore the tribunals holding and rule that if any transfer defeats the provisions of the Act by reducing the extent of surplus lan d 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. May be, that the transaction may be good for other purposes or may not be. The Authorised officer is within his power if he ignores it as void for purposes of s. 22, s. 7 and other ceiling- related provisions.