Case ID: 3547

Judgment:
Appeals Nos. 907 909/74. Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 27 3 73 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 375 377/73 respectively. CIVIL APPEAL No. 1354/75 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 9 7 75 of the Kerala High Court in C.R.P. No. 949/74. CIVIL APPEAL No. 1355/75 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19 6 75 of the Kerala High Court in C.R.P '. No. 611/74. M.M. Abdul	 Advocate Genera1 for the State of Kerala	 and K.M. K. Nair for the Appellants in CAs. 907 909/74 for rr. in CAs. 18541855/ '75. T.S. Krishnamoorthy lyer and P.K. Pillai; for the Appel lants in. 1354 1355/75. Miss Lily Thomas for the Respondents in CAs. 908 909/74. 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 84(11) 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 M.T.J. 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. 90.7 909) are M.T.J. 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 no.t 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 2(3) 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 others(1) 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 Kaur	(2) 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. P.B.R. 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 81(1)(1) exempts kayal padasakharams of Kuttanad area from the restrictions on ownership prescribed.by 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 i.e.	 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: (1)(a) 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