THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.versusSHANKARA TEXTILES MILLS LTD.

A                 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
                                         v.
                     SHANKARA TEXTILES MILLS LTD.

                               OCTOBER 18, 1994

B                 [P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.]

          Land Reforms :

          Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961/Kamataka Land Revenue Act-
C   Sections 2( 18), 79-lJ-81(b )(ii)/95(2)--<:ompany holding lands-Part of
    lands converted as non-agricultural land-The other part continued to be
    considered non-agricultural--Company filing declaration and claiming ex-
    emption-No permission taken under S.95(2) of the Revenue Act for conver-
    sion of land us~ere use for non-agricultural purposes does not convert the
    agricultural land into non-agricultural land-S. 79-B of the Reforms Act-lr-
D   respective of the date of notification the date of vesting of land in Govern-
    ment, would be date on which the provisions came into force.

         The Respondent Company had certain lands. A part of the land on
    which the Company had its factory was converted into non-agricnltural
    land under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and the
E
    remaining land was not converted and continued to be considered as
    agricultural land. Ont of these lands, the Improvement Board acquired
    and took possession to the extent of 28 acres and 14 gunthas, under the
    provisions of Karnataka Improvement Board Act, 1976.

F         Since there was delay in passing the award, the Respondent-Com-
    pany approached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition. The High Court
    directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass the award. The Improvement
    Board filed an appeal, but it was dismissed. Thereafter the Land Acquisi-
    tion Officer made his award and referred it to the Divisional Commis-
G   sioner for approval since the award exceeded Rs.1 lakb. As the approval
    was not forthcoming, the Respondent Company filed a"other Writ Petition
    and the High Court directed the Divisional Commissioner to dispose of
    the proceedings within two months. Despite the directions, the Divisional
    Commissioner did not pass an order.

H         In the meantime the Respondent-Company filed a declatation under
                                         432
                 STATE v. SHANKARA TEXTILES LID.                        433
Section 79·B(2)(a) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 claiming the        A
entire disputed land as agricultural land. It also claimed exemption from
Section 79· B ou the ground that the disputed land was mortgaged to State
Financial Corporation. The Special Deputy Commissioner granted the ex-
emption. The appeal preferred by the State was allowed by the Tribunal.
Against this order, the Respondent-Company filed a Writ Petition which
was allowed by the High Court.                                                 B

      In the present appeal by the State, two questions were raised viz. (i)
Whether the land could be deemed to have been permitted to be converted
for non·agriculatural use merely because it was used for non-agricnltural
purposes although no permission under Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act         C
was taken; and (ii) Whether under S.79-B of the Act, the land vests in the
State Gvoernment from the date of the notification or from the date of
coming into force of the Act.

      Allowing the appeal, this Court
                                                                               D
      HELD : 1. The object of the Act, viz., the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act which came into force on 2nd October, 1965 is, among other things, to
confer ownership on tenants, to place ceiling on land holdings and to
distribute the surplus land among the members of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes, dispossessed tenants unregistered as occupants,
displaced tenants having no land, landless agricultural labourers, landless    E
persons whose gross annual income does not exceed the prescribed limit.
                                                                 [440·B·CJ
      2. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that there is no specific
finding regarding the nature and usage of the land as agricultural and
hence, the Special Deputy Commissinor could not treat it to be an agricul· F
tural land merely on account of the fact that permission for conversion of
the land under Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act was sought (but admittedly
not given). Secondly, it has proceeded on the footing that the land in
question does not satisfy any of the characteristics as required under the
definition 'land' in Section 2(18) of the Act, i.e., Karnataka Land Reforms G
Act (the Act) investing the authorities with the jurisdiction to take proceed·
ings under Section 79-B of the Act. The High Court had misread the facts
on record. The consistent stand taken by the authorities is that the land
was never converted for non-agricultural use as required by the provisions
of Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act. The mere fact that at the .relevant time,
the land was not used for agricultural purpose or purposes subservient H
    434                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   thereto as mentioned in Section 2(18) of the Act or that it was used for
    non-agricultural purpose, assuming it to be so, would not convert the
    agricultural land into a non-agricultural land for the purposes either of the
    Revenue Act or of the Act, viz., Karnataka Land Reforms Act. To hold
    otherwise would defeat the object of both the Acts and would, in particular,
    render the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act, nugatory. What
B   is further, the respondent Company had itself filed a declaration under
    Section 79-B(2)(a) of the Act stating therein that the entire disputed land
    was agricultural land and had claimed exemption from the provisions of
    the said Section 79-B under Section 109 of the Act on the ground that the         '
    land was mortgaged to the Mysore State Financial Corporation. [439-C-H]
c
          3.1. A combined reading of Sections 79-B and 79-C of the Act shows
    that the crucial date of vesting of the land in the State Government is the
    date on which Sections 79-B and 79-C came into operation, i.e., 1st March
    1974. Otherwise, the date of vesting in the Government would vary accord-
    ing to the acts and omissions of the holder of the land in making the
D   declaration and the consequent acts and omissions of the Tahsildar and
    the Deputy Commissioner. In cases where the holder of the land files a
    declaration within the initially stipulated time and where the Tahsildar
    and the Deputy Commissioner act promptly, the land would vest in the
    State Government on a date earlier than in cases where either the holder
E of the land or the Tahsildar or the Deputy Commissioner commit defaults
    or delays in their obligations and duties at the relevant stages. It is against
    the scheme of the Act to hold that the date of the vesting of the land in the
    State Government should be variable according to the acts or omissions
    of the individuals concerned. That would make non-sense of the relevant
    provisions of the Act. It is, therefore, both in conformity with the object of
F   the Act as well as the true intent of the provisions of Section 79-B to hold
    that whatever the date of notification of the Deputy Commissioner, the
    date of vesting of the land will be the date on which the said provision came
    into operation, viz., 1st March, 1974. [442-H, 443-A-D]

G           3.2. The relevant expression in sub-section (3) of Section 79-B reads
    as ".... the Deputy Commissioner... shall, by notification, declare that such
    land shall vest in the State Government. ... ". The section does not leave it
    to the Deputy Commissioner to mention the date from which the land shall
    vest in the State Government. That is as it should be. If the intention was
H othenvise, nothing prevented the legislature from providing that the
            STATE v. SHANKARA TEXTILES LTD. [SAWANT, J.)                 435

Deputy Commissioner would by notification declare that the land shall           A
vest in the State Government "from such date as may be stated in the
notification". There is no such provision in the said sub-section (3).
                                                                  (443-E-F]

       4. The Legislature had taken pains to mention in the other
provisions the specific dates from which the consequences in question will      B
follow. There is a reason for doing so. Unless the iand to be vested in the
State Government is first ascertained, no date of vesting of such land could
be fore-determined. That is not the case under Section 798, since it
provides for the vesting in the Government of all agricultural lands held
by certain persons like the respondent-Company. This is apart from the          C
fact that the provisions of the other Sections cannot help the interpretation
of Section 798(3) the language of which is self-evident and is in confirmity
with the intent of Section 798 and the Act. (444-H, 445-A-8)

        Mysore Feeds Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Anr.; (1988) 1 Karnataka D
LJ. 310, overruled.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5061 of
1994.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.92 of the Karnataka High            E
Court in W.P. No. 6695 of 1985.

        M. Veerappa and Nobin Singh for the Appellants.

        S.S. Javali and P.R. Ramasesh for the Respondent.
                                                                                F
        The Judgment of the Court was deliver.ed by

       SAWANT, J. The respondent is a public limited company and owned
a total land of 49 acres and 38.25 guntas in Davanagere village. At the
relevant time, it had its factory in an area of 13 acres and 32.25 guntas       G
which was converted into non-agricultural and under Section 95(2) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revenue
Act'). The remaining land, viz., 36 acres and 6.) guntas was not converted
into non-agricultuarl land (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed land')
\vith the result that for the purposes of the Revenue Act, it continued to
be considered as agricultural land.                                             H
    436                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A          Improvement Board, Davanagere, sought to acquire land to the
    extent of 28 acres and 14 guntas from the disputed land for the purpose of
    'Devraj Urs Lay-out'. The acquisition proceedings were started under the
    provisions of Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976. In pursuance of
    the final notification issued in the year 1977, the possession of the land was
    taken by the Improvement Board on 9th August, 1978. Since the Land
B   Acquisition Officer did not make the award in respect of the acquired land,
    the respondent-Company approached the High Court for relief by a writ
    petition in which an order was passed on 4th February, 1983 directing the
    Land Acquisition Officer to pass the award. The appeal filed by the
    Improvement Board against the said order was dismissed on 13th Novem-
C   ber, 1983. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer made his award. Since,
    however, the amount payable under the Award exceeded Rs. one lakh, the
    award was referred to the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore for ap-
    proval as provided under the rules on the subject. The Divisional Commis-
    sioner did not approve of the award. Hence the Company filed another
D   writ petition seeking a direction to the Divisional Commissioner to deal
    with the award in accordance with law. That writ petition was allowed on
    19th July, 1984 and the Divisional Commissioner was directed to dispose
    of the proceedings arising out of the award within a period of two months
    from the date of receipt of the order of the Court. In spite of this direction,
    the Divisional Commissioner did not pass any order in the said proceed-
E   ings.

          During the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent-Company
    filed a declaration under Section 79-B{2){a) of the Karnataka Land
    Reforms Act, 1961 {for short'the Act') stating therein that it held the entire
F   disputed land as agricultural land. It further appears that the respondent-
    Company claimed exemption from the provisions of the said Section 79-B,
    under Section 81(b)(ii) of the Act on the grouod that the disputed land
    was mortgaged to the Mysore State Financial Corpora;tion on 3rd June,
    1982. The Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order exempting the
    disputed land from the provisions of Section 79-B. Against the said order,
G   the State preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which was
    allowed with the direction to take action under Section 79-B of the Act.

         Against the said order of the Appellate Tribunal, the respondent-
    Company approached the High Court by way of 'I writ petition. The High
H   Court by the impugned decision allowed the writ petition by holding that
            STATEv. SHANKARA TEXTILESLTD.(SAWANT,J.]                    437

   the Improvement Board as an agency of the Government having taken A
  possession of the land under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, in
  the acquisition proceedings, the land had vested in the Government free
  from all encumbrances. Hence the question of the Government exercising
  its power to withdraw from acquisition of the land did not arise. The Court
  further held that there was no automatic vesting of the disputed land in the B
  State under Section 79-B of the Act, since the vesting under the said
  provision could take place only upon a declaration by notification under
  Section 79-B(3} of the Act. For this purpose, the Court relied upon its
  earlier decision in Mysore Feeds Ltd. v. State of Kamataka & Anr., (1988}
  1 Karnataka L.J. 310. The Court held, relying upon the said decision, that
  the land which is agricultural may cease to be agricultural by its usage for C
  a non-agricultural purpose although there is no order under the Revenue
  Act permitting the conversion of the agricultural land into non-agricultural
. land. The Court, therefore, held that looking to the usage of the entire land
  which was in the possession of the respondent-Company, even the disputed
  land had no longer remained agricultural within the meaning of Section D
  2(18) of the Act and hence the direction given by the Appellate Tribunal
  to the Special Deputy Commissioner to take action under Section 79-B of
  the Act, could not be sustained. It is aggrieved by the said decision that
  the State has preferred the present appeal.

       2. Two questions arise in this appeal. The first is whether the land   E
can be deemed to have been permitted to be converted for non-agricultural
use merely because it was used for non-agricultural purposes although,
admittedly, no permission under Section 95(2} of the Revenue Act was
taken, to do so. The second question is whether under Section 79-B of the
Act, the land vests in the State Government prospectively form the date of    F
the notification or retrospectively from the date of the coming into opera-
tion of the Act. The first question has been answered by the High Court
in the affirmative while on the second question, the High Court. has taken
the view that the land vests in the Government from the date of the
notification. According to us, both the answers are wrong in law.
                                                                              G
      3. Section 95(2} of the Revenue Act at the relevant time read as
follows:

         "95 : Use of agricultural land and the procedure for use of agricul-
         tural land for other purposes. -                                     H
    438                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A            (1) x x x x x x x x

             (2) If any occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of
             agriculture wishes to divert such land or any part' thereof to any
             other purpose, he shall apply for permission to the Deputy Com-
             missioner who may, subject to the provisions of this section and
B            the rules made under this Act, refuse permission or grant it on
             such conditions as he may think fit;

         The obvious purpose of this Section is to prevent indiscriminate
  conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use and to regulate and
C control the conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land. Sec-
  tion 83 of that Act provides for different rates of assessment for agricultural
  and non- agricultural land. That provision strengthens the presumption that
  agricultural land is not to be used, as per the holder's sweet will, for
  non-agricultural purposes. This is also clear from the absence of any
  provision under that Act requiring permission to convert non-agricultural
D land into agricultural land. In a country like ours, where the source of
  livelihood of more than 70 per cent of the population, is agriculture, the
  restriction placed by the Revenue Act is quite understandable. Such
  provision and restriction are found in the Revenue Acts of all the States
  in the country. The provision has, therefore, to be construed as mandatory
E and given effect to as such.
          The High Court has obviously ignored the mandatory nature of the
    said provision. On this point, after referring to an earlier decision of the
    same Court in Mysore Feeds Ltd. case (supra) the Court has held as follows:

F            "As held in the above case, land which is agricultural may cease
             to be agricultural for various reasons. Theoretically such land may
             fall within the definition of 'Land' in Section 2(18) of the Act.
             However, in the absence of any specific finding regarding the
             nature or usage of the land as agricultural, the Special Deputy
             Commissioner cannot treat it to be an agricultural land merely on
G            account of the fact that permission for conversion of the land under
             Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was sought.
             Even otherwise, admittedly, the land in question does not satisfy
             any of the characteristics as required under aforesaid definition
             investing respondent-2 with the jurisdiction to take proceedings
H            under section 79-B of the Act. Further more, since vesting could
          STATEv. SHANKARA TEXTILESLTD.[SAWANT,J.]                      439

        take place only on a declaration being made as provided ur der A
        sub-section (3) of Section 79-B of the Act, a declaration by the
        holder at some earlier point of time in respect of the land cannot
        vest the authority with the jurisdiction to pass an order of vesting
        notwithstanding the fact that the land by then had ceased to be an
        agricultural land and treated as such since long. This view is also B
        in conformity with the scheme of the Act, inter alia, regarding
        disposal of surplus land vesting in the State as provided under
        section 77 of the Act."

       4. Thus the High Court has proceeded on the basis that there is no
specific finding regarding the nature and usage of the land as agricultural C
and hence, the Special Deputy Commissioner could not treat it to be an
agricultural land merely on account of the fact that permission for conver-
sion of the land under Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act was sought (but
admittedly not given). Secondly, it has proceeded on the footing that the ·
land in question does not satisfy any of the characteristics as required D
under tlie definition of 'land' in Section 2(18) of the Act, i.e., Karnataka
Land Reforms Act investing the authorities with the jurisdiction to take
proceedings under Section 79-B of the Act. We are afraid that the High
Court has misread the facts on record. The consistent stand taken by the
authorities is that the land was never converted for non-agricultural use as E
required by the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act. The mere
fact that at the relevant time, the land was not used for agricultural purpos.e
or purposes subservient thereto as mentioned in Section 2 {18) of the Act
or that it was used for non-agricultural purpose,.assuming it to be so, would
not convert the agriculatural land into a non-agricultural land for the
purposes either of the Revenue Act or of the Act, viz., Karnataka Land
                                                                                F
Reforms Act. To hold otherwise would defeat the object of both the Acts
and would, in particular, render the provisions of Section 95(2) of the
Revenue Act, nugatory. Such an interpretation is not permissible by any
rule of the interpretation of statutes. What is further, the respondent-Com-
pany had itself filed a declaration under Section 79-B(2)(a) of the Act G
stating therein that the entire disputed land was agricultrural land and had
claimed exemption from the provisions of the said Section 79-B under
Section 109 of the Act on the ground that the land was mortgaged to the
Mysore State Financial Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to agree
with the view taken by the High Court on the point,                             H
    440                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A        It is for these reasons that we do not approve of the decision in
    Mysore Feeds Ltd. case (supra) which stands expressly overruled.

          5. Coming now to the second question, here again, the High Court
    has missed the wood for the tree. The object of the Act, viz., the Karnataka
    Land Reforms Act which came into force on 2nd October, 1965 is, among
B   other things, to confer ownership on tenants, to place ceiling on land
    holdings and to distribute the surplus land among the members of the
    Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes, dispossessed tenants unregistered
    as occupants, displaced tenants having no land, landless agricultural
    labourers, landless persons whose gross annual income does not exceed Rs.
C   4,800 and ex-military personnel whose gross annual income does not ex-
    ceed Rs. 12,000, and among the released bonded labourers and other
    persons residing in villages, whose gross annual income does not exceed
    Rs. 2,000.

          Chapter V relating to "Restrictions on Holdings or Transfer of
D Agricultural Lands" was inserted in the Act by Act 1 of 1974 and came into
    effect from 1st March, 1974. It contains Sections 79-A, 79B and 79-C,
    among others. Section 79-A, inter alia, prohibits acquisition of land by
    certain persons. It states that on and from the commencement of the
    Amendment Act, i.e. Act 1 of 1974, no person who, or a family or a joint
E   family which, has an assured annual income of not less than Rs. 50,000
    (earlier Rs. 12,000), from sources other than agricultural lands, shall be
    entitled to acquire any land whether as land owner, land-lord, tenant
    mortgagee with possession or otherwise or partly in one capacity and partly
    in another.

F         Sub-section (3) of Section 79-A states that every acquisition of land
    otherwise than by way of inheritance or bequest in contravention of the
    section shall be null and void.

           Section 79-B which falls for consideration in the present case reads
G   as follows;

             "79-B. Prohibition of holding agricultural land by cenain persons.-(1)
             With effect on and from the date of commencement of the Amend-
             ment Act, except as otherwise provided in this Act, -

H            (a) no person other than a person cultivating land personally shall
  STATEv. SHANKARA TEXTILES LID. [SAWANT,J.]                    441
be entitled to hold land; and                                          A
(b) it shall not be lawful for,

(i) an educational religious or charitable institution or society or
trust, other than an institution or society or trust referred to in
sub-section (7) of section 63, capable of holding property;            B
(ii) a company;

(iii) an association or other body of individuals not being a joint
family, whether incorporated or not; or
                                                                       c
(iv) a co-operative society other than a co-operative farm,
     to hold land.

(2) Every such institution, society, trust, company, association,
body or co-operative society, -
                                                                       D
(a) which holds lands on the date of commencement of the Amend-
ment Act and which is disentitled to hold lands under sub-section
(1), shall, within ninety days from the said date furnish to the
Tahsildar within whose jurisdiction the greater part of such land
is situated a declaration containing the particulars of such land      E
and such other particulars as may be prescribed; and

(b) which acquires such land after the said date shall also furnish
a similar declaration within the prescribed period.

(3) The Tahsildar shall, on receipt of the declaration under sub-
section (2) and after such enquiry as may be prescribed, send a
                                                                       F
statement containing the prescribed particulars relating to such
land to the Deputy Commissioner who shall, by notification,
declare that such land shall vest in the State Government free from
all encumbrances and take possession thereof in the prescribed
manner.                                                                G
(4) In respect of the land vesting in the State Government under
this section an amount as specified in section 72 shall be paid.

Explanation. - For purposes of this section it shall be presumed
that a land is held by an institution, trust, company, association or H
    442                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A            body where it is held by an individual on its behalf.

           Section 79-C provides for penalty for failure to furnish a declaration
    under Section 79-A or Section 79-B and for furnishing a false declaration.
    Section 80 bars transfer of agricultural land to non-agriculturists. Section
    81 states that the provisions of Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80 shall not apply
B   to [a) the sale, gift, or mortgage of any land or interest therein in favour of
    the Government [b I the mortgage of any land or interest therein in favour
    of (i) a co-operative society and (ii) a financial institution, among others.
    It is not necessary to refer to the other provisions of the said Chapter.

C         6. It will thus be clear from these provisions that no person is
    permitted to acquire or hold agricultural land except as provided in the
    Act with effect from 1st March, 1974. There is no dispute in the present
    case that the respondent-Company filed a declaration, as required under
    Section 79-B (2)(a), stating therein that the disputed land which was an
D   agricultural land was in its possession.

         A reading of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 79-B shows
  that after a declaration is received by the Tahsildar, he has to make an
  enquiry and send a statement containing the prescribed particulars relating
  to the land in question, to the Deputy Commissioner, and it is the Deputy
E Commissioner who thereupon issues a notification declaring that the land
  shall vest in the State Government and takes possession thereafter of such
  land. The enquiry to be held by the Tahsildar, the act of sending of the
  statement pertaining to the land to the Deputy Commissioner and the
  issuance of notification by the Deputy Commissioner thereafter, are all acts
F consequent    upon the filing of the declaration by the iand holder. Where
  no declaration is made by the holder of the land or the declaration made
  by him is false, the Tahsildar has to issue under Section 79-C a notice to
  him to show cause as to why the penalty specified in the notice should not
  be imposed upon him. If the Tahsildar, after considering the reply, if any,
  comes to the conclusion that the failure to furnish the declaration was
G without any reasonable cause, or that the false declaration was made
  knowingly, he is empowered to impose a penalty and also to require such
   person to furnish the declaration within a period of one month from the
   date of his order. If the person fails to comply with the said order of the
  Tahsildar, his right, title and interest in the land concerned is liable to be
H forfeited to the State Government as and by way of penalty. A combined
          STATEv. SHANKARA TEXTILES LTD. [SAWANT,J.]                     443

reading of Sections 79-B and 79-C, therefore, shows that the crucial date A
of vesting of the land in the State Government is the date on which Sections
79-B and 79-C came into operation, i.e., 1st March, 1974. Otherwise, the
date of vesting in the Government would vary according to the acts and
omissions of the holder of the land in making the declaration and the
consequent acts and omissions of the Tahsildar and the Deputy Commis-
                                                                               B
sioner. In cases where the holder of the land files a declaration within the
initially stipulated time and where the Tahsildar and the Deputy Commis-
sioner act promptly, the land would vest in the State Government on a date
earlier than in cases where either the holder of the land or the Tahsildar
or the Deputy Commissioner commit defaults or delays in their obligations
and duties at the relevant stages. It is against the scheme of the Act to hold C
that the date of the vesting of the land in the State Government should be
variable according to the acts or omissions of the individuals concerned.
That would make non-sense of the relevant provisions of the Act. It is,
therefore, both in conformity with the object of the Act as ·well as the true
intent of the provisions of Section 79-B (3) to hold that whatever the date D
of notification of the Deputy Commissioner, the date of vesting of the land
will be the date on which· the said provision came into operation, viz., 1st
March, 1974. It is necessary in this connection to remember that ·the
relevant expression in sub-section (3) of Section 79-B reads as "....... the
Deputy Commissioner .... shall, by notification, declore that such land shall
vest in the State Government... ..". The section does not leave it to the E
Deputy Commissioner to mention the date from which the land .shall vest
in the State Government. That is as it should be. If the intention was
otherwise, nothing prevented the legislature from providing that the
Deputy Commissioner would by notification declare that the land shall vest
in the State Government "from such date as may be stated in the notifica- F
tion". There is no such provision in the said sub-section (3).

      7. Shri Javali, the learned counsel for the respondent-Company in-
vited our attention to certain proviSions in the Act to contrast the language
of the said provisions with that of Section 79-8(3). We find that far from
helping his contention, the language of the said provisions militate against    G
it.

      Section 15(6) of the Act provides for resumption of land by soldier
or seaman. Sub-section (6) thereof states: "where the Tahsildar on applica-
tion by the tenantwr otherwise and after such enquiry...... is satisfied .... he H
    444                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A shall, by notification declare that with effect from such date as may be
    specified in the notification, the land leased shall stand transferred to and
    vest in the State Government.. .. ".

           Section 44 provides for vesting of land of the tenants in the State
    Government for conferment of ownership on them. sub-section ( 1) thereof
B   provides that "all lands held by or in the possession of tenants ..... immedi-
    ately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, ..... with
    effect 011 and from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in the State
    Government".

c tion (3)Section 67 provides for surrender of lands in certain cases, Sub-sec-
            thereof states that "if the person concerned files declaration .... the
    Tribunal may.... pass an order approving the surrender and the said land
    shall, thereupon be deemed to have been surrendered by such person".

           Section 68 provides for vesting of land surrendered by limited owner,
D It reads as follows : ''Where the land surrendered under section 67 is by
    an owner (other than a limited owner), the State Government may take
    over such land on the service of the order under section 67 and such land
    shall thereupon vest in the State Govermnent. ....".

E          Section 71 provides for vesting of land surrendered by tenant. Sub-
     section (3) thereof reads as follows : "In cases where possession of the land
     surrendered by a tenant does not revert to the owner .... the State Govern-
     ment may take over the land on the publication of the notification under
     Section 73 and the land shall thereupon vest in the State Govermnent.. ... ".

F           Section 79A, as stated earlier, provides for prohibition -0f acquisition
     of land by certain persons. Sub-section (5) thereof reads as follows: "The
     Tahsildar shall..... send a statement containing.... to the Deputy Commis-
     sioner who shall by notification declare that with effect from such date as ·
     may be specified in the notification, such land shall stand transferred to and
G    vest in the State Govermnent.. .. From the date specified in such notification
     the Deputy Commissioner may take possession of such land in such manner
     as may be prescribed".

           It will thus be noticed that the legislature had taken pains to mention
     in the other provisions the specific dates from which the consequences in
H    question will follow. There is a reason for doing so. ~nless the land to be
          STATE v. SHANKARA TEXTILES LTD. [SAWANT, J.]                    445

vested in the State Government is first ascertained, no date of vesting of       A
such land could be fore-detemined. That is not the case under Section 79B,
since it provides for the vesting in the Government of all agricultural lands
held by certain person like the respondent-Company. This is apart from
the fact that the provisions of the other sections cannot help the interpreta-
tion of Section 79B(3) the language of which is self-evident and is in           B
conformity with the intent of Section 79B and the Act.

      8. It is for this reason that we are unable to agree with the decision
of the High Court in Mysore Feeds Ltd. case (supra) on which the im-
pugned decision of the High Court has also kept reliance and the said
decision stands overruled on this point as well.                                 C
      9. In the result, we set aside the impugned decision of the High
Court, restore that of the Appellate Tribunal and allow the appeal. In the
circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

G.N.                                                        Appeal allowed.