Holding

Pending proceedings under the 1961 Act must first determine the original ceiling ignoring sales after the 1962 notified date, and then the holding must be further reduced under the 1970 Reduction Act by applying the amended Section 23, with Section 21‑A overriding other provisions.

Summary

The appellants in three separate sets of appeals held agricultural land in excess of the ceiling prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 and had made sales of portions of that land before the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970 came into force. The core issue was how to determine the permissible holding when pending proceedings under the 1961 Act overlapped with the 1970 Reduction Act, particularly whether sales made before the new notified date should be ignored and how Section 21‑A, which provides a transfer holiday to educational institutions, affected the calculation. The Court held that under Section 3(1) of the Reduction Act the pending proceeding must continue as if the Reduction Act had not been passed to determine the original ceiling, ignoring sales after the 1962 notified date, and then, under Section 3(2), the holding must be further reduced by applying the amended Section 23, ignoring only sales between the 1970 notified date and the final statement. Section 21‑A overrides other provisions and validates transfers to educational institutions made between 5‑Feb‑1970 and 2‑Oct‑1970. Accordingly, the Court allowed the first and third appeals in part, remanding the matters for fresh determination, and dismissed the second appeal.

Issues considered

How should the ceiling of land holding be calculated when proceedings under the 1961 Act are pending at the time the 1970 Reduction Act comes into force?
Do sales of land made before the notified date of the Reduction Act count towards the ceiling under the modified Act?
What is the effect of Section 21‑A of the Reduction Act on pending proceedings and on transfers to educational institutions?
How should the saving provisions of Section 3 of the Reduction Act be interpreted in conjunction with the amended Section 23?

Subjects

land ceilingland reformsreduction actpending proceedingsSection 21-Atransfer to educational institutionsaving provisionceiling calculation

Judgment

_J

V. GOPAL REDDIAR (DEAD) BY L.R. AND ANR. ETC. A
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC.

FEBRUARY 24, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.) B

Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act,
1961-Section 23-Tamil Nadu Land Refonns (Reduction of Ceiling on

J_i Land) Act, 197(}-Section 3(2)-/nterpretation of-Fixation of land hold-
ing--Proceedings commenced under Principal Act-Not concluded before C
Reduction Act came into force-Method of calculation of ceiling-Transfer of
land to any educational institution•between 5-2-1970 and 2-10-197(}-Valid
transfer to be excluded from holding of any person-Benefit of section 21-A
can be claimed.

The appellants held agricultural lands in excess of the ceiling limit D
on 6-4-1960, the date of commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
(Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act; 1961. Under Section S of the Act, a
ceiling of 30 standard acres was fixed on land holding in the case of a
family. An additional 10 standard acres was the ceiling on holding of
stridhana land. Within 90 days of the notified date, every person holding E
in excess of the ceiling area was required to furnish to the Authorised
Officer a return in respect of his .land. The notified date under the
Principal Act was 2-10-1962. The Authorised Officer was required to
prepare a draft statement in respect of a person's holding in excess of the
ceiling limit.
F
If a person held land in excess of the ceiling limit, any sale of land,
effected by him after the notified date but before the publication of the
. -< final statement, could not be taken into account while considering his
holding for the purpose of the ceiling limit.

The appellant effected sale transactions in respect of certain lands G
held by him between 3-7-1963 and 17-7-1964 i.e. after the notified date. On
28-7-1965, a draft statement was published in respect of the appellant's
lands. The appellant objected to the draft statement. While the proceed-
ings were pending under the Principal Act, the Tamil Na~u Land Reforms
(Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970 came into force. The date of H
351
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A commencement of the Reduction Act was 15-2-1970 and the notified date
was 2-10-1970. Under the Reduction Act, the ceiling on land in the case of
a family was reduced to 15 standard acres.

The appellant claimed that the transactions of sale effected between
3-7-1963 and 17-7-1964 being prior to the commencement of the Reduction
B Act should be excluded from their holding for the purpose of determining
the now reduced ceiling limit under the pending proceedings. The claim
was rejected. An order was passed asking the appellants to surrender 30.30
standard acres from out of their holding as surplus. The appellants
challenged the order in an appeal before the Land Tribunal. The Tribunal
C confirmed the order of the Authorised Officer and dismissed the appeal.
In revision, the High Court directed a fresh enquiry to be held by the
Authorised Officer. The Authorised Officer was directed to consider
whether the sale transaction of the appellants before the notified date of
2-10- 1970 were bona fide transactions or not.

D The Authorised officer held that the transactions of sale after 6-4-
1960 will have to be ignored for the purpose of the pending proceedings.
He determined the surplus land accordingly. The Land Tribunal in appeal ~
upheld the order. The revision petition filed against the order was dis-
missed by the High Court. Hence these appeals.
E
The appellant contended that since the notified date now was 2-10-
1970, transactions of sale between 2-10-1970 and the date of the publication
of the final statement alone had to be ignored for the purpose of determin-
ing the ceiling of 15 standard acres under the amended principal Act.

F The respondent submitted that as a result of Section 3(2) of the ~.
Reduction Act, the pending proceedings under the old Act had to be
continued save and except that the ceiling would be reduced. Hence trans- ---,__
actions of sale after 2-10-1962 which were required to be ignored under the
unamended section 23 of the Principal Act wocld also have to be ignored
G under the Principal Act as modified by the Reduction Act in view of Section
3(1).

Dismissing the appeal, this Court ,.,.

HELD : 1.1 In a case where a proceeding under the Tamil Nadu Land
H Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 had commenced under
j
~-
V.G. REDDIAR v. SfA1EOFTN. [MRS.SUJATAV. MANOHAR,J.) 353

the "Act but bad not concluded before the commencement of the Reduction A

r Act, the proceeding will have to be continued under the unamended Prin·
cipal Act to arrive at the permissible holding under the unamended
Principal Act. A person, however, cannot bold more than the reduced
ceiling area after the commencement of the Reduction Act. (360-E]

1.2 The proceeding, therefore, will have to continue in order to B
further determine the reduced holding under the modified Principal Act.
For the purpose of determining his final holding under the modified
Principal Act, the amended Section 23 will have to be applied to tlie ceiling
holding determined under the original Principal Act. In the present case,
therefore the holding under the principal Act will have to be first deter· C
mined by ignoring the sales after 2·10-62. There for the purpose of cal·
culating the reduced ceiling area, sale transactions between the new
notified date and the date of the final further statement alont;--should be· -
ignored (vide amended section 23). Therefore, for further redu~on under
Section 3(2) what will have to be taken into account, will be the holding of
the appellants as determined under the Principal Act [Section 3(1)), less D
any other permissible reduction in their holding on account of sales,
transfers etc. prior to the commencement of the Reduction Act. [360-F-H]

1.3 The words "and the provisions of the Principal Act as modified
by Section 2 shall after the said date apply to such person" in Section 3(2) E
clearly indicate that the further reduction of holding as per the Reduction
Act has to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act
read with the Reduction Act. Sub-section (2) cannot be read as simply
reducing the teiling area in the pending proceedings under the .Principal
Act. Sub-section (2) clearly provides the method of thus reducing the
ceiling after 15th of February, 1970. This further reduction has to be done F
in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act read with the
Reduction Act. [361-A·B]

B.K. V. Radhamani Ammal v. Authorised Officer, Land Refonns,
Coimbatore, [1985) 2 SCC 46, distinguished.
G
_fa-Section 21-A of the Tamil Nadu Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on
Land) Act, 1970 overrides all other provisions of the Act including Section
22. It will, therefore, override Section 3(1) of the Reduction Act also. Hence,
as a result of Section 21-A, if between 5.2.1970 and 2.10.1970 any land is
transferred voluntarily, inter alia, to any educational institution, such a H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 2 S.C.R.

A transfer shall be valid. The land so transferred is, therefore, excluded from
the holding of any person even though the proceedings against him may
have commenced under the o!d (i.e. the Principal) Act. If the proceedings
had not concluded before the Reduction Act came into force, the person
can claim the benefit of Section 21-A. [366-C-D]

B Sushi/a Devi Ammal and Ors. v. State of Madras, [1993) 1 SCC 462
and MK Harihar Lyer v. Authorised Officer Land Refonns, Tirumelveli,
[1990) 1 SCR 358, relied on.

B.K. V. Radhamani Ammal v. Authorised Officer, Land Refonns,
C Coimbatore, (1985) 2 SCC 46, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3774-75
of 1992 etc. etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.89 of the Madras High
D Court in C.R.P. No. 4802 and 4854 of 1982.
K. Parasaran and Sundara Varadhan, Peter Francis, V. Ramasubra-
manian, V. Balachandran, S. Srinivasan, K. Swami, K. Srinivasan, A. ':fl
Mariarputham and Mrs. Aruna Mathur for the appearing parties

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.E
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Leave granted in C.A. Nos. 3039-
40-95 S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 14935-14936 of 1994.

Substitution allowed in Civil Appeal Nos. 3774-3775 of 1992.
F All these appeals raise a common question of law relating to the
interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on
Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Principal Act') read with
Tamil Nadu Act No. 17 of 1970 which is the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
(Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970. The latter Act is hereinafter
G referred to as 'the Reduction Act'. As the facts are different in each group
of appeals, they are dealt with separately.
>
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3774-3775 OF 1992

The deceased, V. Gopal Reddiar, the first appellant and his wife, the
H sec9nd appellant in these appeals, held agricultural lands in excess of the
!
J
V.G.REDDIAR v.STATEOFT.N.[MRS.SUJATAV.MANOHAR,J.) 355 i

ceiling limit on 6.4.1960, which is the date of commencement of the Tamil A
Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, l<J61. under
r Section 5 of the Principal Act, a ceiling of 30 standard acres is fixed on
land holding in the case of a family. An additional 10 standard acres is the
ceiling on land holding of Stridhana land.

Under Section 7 of the Principal Act, on and from the date of B
commencement of the Act (i.e. on and from 6.4.1960) no person shall
(except as otherwise provided in this Act, but subject to the provisions of
Chapter VIII) hold land in excess of the ceiling area. under Section 8,
"""-'
){ within 90 days of the notified date, every person holding or deemed to be
holding land in excess of the ceiling area is required to furnish to the c
Authorised Officer a return in respect of his land as specified in that
Section. The notified date under the Principal Act is 2.10.1962. Under
Section 10(1) the Authorised Officer is required to prepare a draft state-
ment in respect of a person's holding in excess of the ceiling area in the
manner and on the basis specified therein. This draft statement is required

. to be published. A final statement has thereafter to be prepared and D
published as set out in sections 12 to 14.

Under Section 23 of the principal Act, if a person holds land in
excess of the ceiling limit any sale of land, effected by him after the notified
date but before the publication of the final statement, cannot be taken into E
account in considering his holding for the purposes of fixing the ceiling. In
the present case, the appellants effected sale transactions in respect of
certain lands held by them between 3.7.1963 and 17.7.1964 i.. e after the
notified date under the Principal Act. There are five such transactions of
sale during this period .
.J F
On 28.7.1965, a draft statement was published in respect of the
-~
appellants' land under section 10(1) of the Principal Act. The appellants
objected to the draft statement on 18.11.1965. While the proceedings were
pending under the Principal Act, the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduc-
tion of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970 came into force. The date of commen-
G
cement of the Reduction Act is 15.2.1970. Under the Reduction Act, the
ceiling on land in the case of a family was reduced to 15 standard acres
"'- and the ceiling on Stridhana land was reduced to 5 standard acres. The
"notified date" under the Reduction Act was 2.10.1970.

It was the contention of the appellants that the transactions of sale H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A effected between 3.7.1963 and 17.7.1964 were prior to the commence.ment
of tne Reduction Act, and should be excluded from their holding for the
purpose of determining the now reduced ceiling limit under the pending
- proceedings. This submission was rejected. An order was passed on
20.11.1971 asking the appellants to surrender 30.30 standard acres from out
B of their holding as surplus. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellants
filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal confirmed
the order of the Authorised Officer and dismissed the appeal.

In revision, the High Court by its order dated 16.7.1976 directed a
fresh enquiry to be held by the Authorised officer. The High Court said
-C that under the Reduction Act the notified date was 2.10.1970. It directed
the Authorised Officer to consider whether the sale transactions of the
appellants before this notified date were bona fide transactions or not.

The Authorised Officer, by his order dated 25.9.1980, held that the
D transactions of sale after 6.4.1960 will have to be ignored for the purpose
of the pending proceedings i.e. the lands forming the subject matter of
these sales shall be considered as a part of the appellants' holding. He
determined the surplus land accordingly. The Land Tribunal in appeal
upheld the order of the Authorised officer. The revision petition of the
appellants has been dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 22nd
E oI November, 1989. Hence the present appeals have been filed.

Now, in order· to appreciate the contentions of both sides, it is

F
necessary to look at Chapter III of the Principal Act. Chapter III of the
Principal Act is entitled "Ceiling on Future Acquisition and Restriction of
Certain Transfers". Sections 19 to 23 constitute this Chapter. under Section
19(1), on and after the notified date (2.10.1962), no document relating
(inter alia) to any transfer of land by sale shall be registered unless a
.
.
declaration is made by the transferee before the registering authority of the
total extent of land held by him, as set out therein.

G Section 20(1) provides that if, as a result of any transfer of land (inter
alia) by sale, on or after the notified date, the land held by the transferee
exceeds the ceiling area, then the right, title or interest accrued in his
favour by virtue of such transfer in excess of the ceiling area, shall be
deemed to have been transferred to the Government. Both these sections
H prescribe restrictions qua a transferee after the notified date.
i
V.G. REDDIAR v. STATE OFT.N. [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.] 357

Under Section 22, where on or after the date of commencement but A
before the notified date (i.e. from 6.4.1960 to 2.10.1962) any person has
transferred any land held by him (inter alia) by sale, the Authorised Officer
may, after notice, on enquiry, declare the transfer to be void if he finds that
the transfer defeats any of the provisions of this Act.

Section 23 which is relevant for our purpose provides as follows:- B

Subject to the provisions of section 20, for the purpose of'fixing,
for the first time, the ceiling area of any person holding· land on
the date of the commencement of this Act, in excess of 30 standard
acres, the authorised officer shall not take into consideration- C
(a) any transfer ......................................... by sale ..........................

(b) ............................ effected on or after the notified date and
before the date of the publication of the final statement under
Section 12, or 14." D
Thus, Sections 22 and 23 place restrictions on transfer of land qua a
transferor. Any transfer made by a transferor between 6.4.1960 and
2.10.1962 is liable to be declared void if it defeats the Principal Act. Any
transfer made after 2.10.1962 and before the final statement cannot be
taken into account for determining the land holding of the transferor, if he E
holds land in excess of the ceiling area. The transactions of sale in the
present case are not affected by Section 22. Under Section 23, however,
for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of 30 standard aa:es under
the Principal Act, any sale transaction after the notified date of 2.10.1962
but before the publication of the final statement has to be ignored. There- F
fore, the transactions of sale in the present case, which have taken place
after the notified date but before the final statement, have to be ignored
for the purpose of determining the appellants' ceiling limit under the
Principal Act.

However, in the present case, the Reduction Act had come into force G
before the publication of the final statement. As a result of the Reduction
Act, the Principal Act was modified as set out in the said Reduction Act.
As a result, "the date of the commencement of this Act" as defined in
Section 3(11) of the Principal Act was changed to 15th of February, 1970
instead of 6th of April, 1960. By reason of amendment of Section 3(31), H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 2 S.C.R.

A the "notified date" became 2.10.1970. In Section 5 of the Principal Act, the
ceiling area of 30 standard acres was changed to 15 standard acres and the
Stridhana holding was changed from 10 standard acres to 5 standard acres. ~
We are not concerned with the other changes in Section 5.
Section 23 1of the Principal Act was amended by insertion of the
B words "after the date of the commencement of this Act", after the words
"for the first time"; and "30 standard acres" was substituted by "15 standard
acres".

~
', The amended Section 23 reads thus :

c Subject to the provisions of Section 20, for the purpose of fixing, ~I
for the first time, after the commencement of this Act, the ceiling
area of any person holding land on the date of the commencement
of this Act, in excess of 15 standard acres, the Authorised Officer
shall not take into consideration .-
D
(a) any transfer ..................................... by sale ........................... ;

(b) ............ ...... .... ........ ..... effected on or after the notified date
•
~.;

and before the date of the publication of the final statement
under section 12 or 14."
E
It is contented by the appellants that since the notified date now is
2.10.1970, transactions of sale between 2.10.1970 and the date of the
publication of the final statement alone have to be ignored for the purpose
of determining the ceiling of 15 standard acres under the amended prin-
cipal Act. Hence the transactions of sale in the present case, which have
F taken place prior to 2.10.1970, cannot be ignored and will have to be taken \
into account to determine the holding of the appellants on the date of the
commencement bf the Reduction Act. ).-.
This submission ignores section 3 of the Reduction Act which is in
the nature of a Saving Section. It provides as follows :-
G
"Section 3: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) any
action taken (including any order made, notification issued,
decision or direction given, proceeding taken, liability or penalty
incurred and punishment awarded) under the provisions of the
H Principal Act before the date of the publication of this Act in the
j
V.G.REDDIAR v. STATEOFT.N.[MRS.SUJATAV.MANOHAR,J.] 359

Fort St. George Gazette, may be continued or enforced after the A
r- said date in accordance with the provisions of thi.: Principal Act
as if this Act had not been passed.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to entitle any person
whether or not such person is a party to any proceeding mentioned
in sub-section (1), to hold after the 15th day of February 1970, land B
in excess of the ceiling area under the Principal Act as modified
by section 2 and the provisions of the Principal Act as modified

"i i
,..
by section 2 shall, after the said date, apply to such person."

Section 3(1) provides that any proceeding which has been taken under the c
provisions of the Principal Act before the publication of the Reduction Act,
may be continued in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act
as if the Reduction Act had not been passed. The proceeding for the
determination of ceiling under the Principal Act had commenced in the
present case in 1965. It had, however, not been concluded when the
Reduction Act came into force. Under Section 3(1), therefore, this D
...
-.J· proceeding has to be continued as if the Reduction Act had not been
passed. Taken by itself, therefore under Section 3(1) the ceiling area of 30
standard acres would have to be determined under the Principal Act as it
originally stood. If so, the sale transactions in question will not be con-
sidered for determining the ceiling area prescribed under the unamended E
Principal Act, they having taken place after 2.10.1962 and before the
publication of the final statement.

Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Reduction Act, however, provides
~ that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no person shall
be deemed to be entitled to hold after 15th of February, 1970, land in
F
._,,( excess of the ceiling area under the Principal Act as modified by the
Reduction Act. It further provides that the provisions of the Principal Act
as modified by Section 2 of the Reduction Act shall, after 15th of February,
1970, apply to such a person. Therefore, it is clear that despite Section 3(1)
the appellants cannot hold land in excess of the reduced ceiling area after G
15.2.1970. Their holding, determined under Section 3(1), would have to be
reduced further. How should this be done?

It is submitted before us by the respondents that as a result of Section
3(2) of the Reduction Act, pending proceeding under the old Act have to H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A be continued save and except that the ceiling would be reduced. Hence
transactions of sale after 2.10.1962 which were required to be ignored
under the unamended Section 23 of the Principal Act would also have to
be ignored under the Principal Act as modified by the Reduction Act in
view of Section 3(1).
B
This submission ignores an important part of Section 3(2) which
prescribes that for the purpose of determining a person's reduced ceiling
after 15th of February, 1970, the provisions of the Principal Act as
modified by section 2 of the Reduction Act, shall apply to a person
C against whom any proceedings are pending as described under Section
3(1). This means that under Section 3(2), for the purpose of determining
the reduced holding, the amended Section 23 will have to be applied i.e.
the notified date under the amended Section 23 has not to be read as
2.10.1970 instead of 2.10.1962. For the purpose, therefore, of reducing the
D holding further under Section 3(2), only sale transactions between
2.10.1970 and the date of the final statement are required to be ignored.
Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 must be read harmoniously. In a
case where a proceeding under the Principal Act had commenced under
the Principal Act but had not concluded before the commencement of
the Reduction Act, the proceeding will have to be continued under the
E unamended Principal Act to arrive at the permissible holding under the
unamended Principal Act. A person, however, cannot hold more than the
reduced ceiling area after the commencement of the Reduction Act. The
proceeding, therefore, will have to continue in order to further determine
the reduced holding under the modified Principal Act. For the purpose
F of determining his final holding under the modified Principal Act, the
amended Section 23 will have to be applied to the ceiling holding
deterinined under the original Principal Act. In the present case, there-
fore, for the purpose of calculating the reduced ceiling area sale trans-
actions between the new notified date and the date of the final statement
G alone should be ignored (vide amended Section 23). Sale transactions
prior to 15.2.1970 will have to be taken into account. Therefore, for
further reduction under Section 3(2) what will have to be taken into
account, will be the holding of the appellants as determined under the
Principal Act [Section 3(1)) less any other reduction in their holding on
H account of sales, transfers etc. prior to the commencement_ of the
V.G. REDDIAR v. STAIBOFTN. [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.] 361

Reduction Act. The existence of the words "and the provisions of the A
Principal Act as modified by Section 2 shall after ·the said date apply to
such person" in Section 3(2) clearly indicate that the further reduction of
holding as per the Reduction Act has to be done in accordance with the
provisions of the Principal Act read with .the Reduction Act. Sub-section
(2) cannot be read as simply reducing the ceiling area in the pending B
proceedings under the Principal Act. Sub-section (2) clearly provides the
method of thus reducing the ceiling after 15th of February, 1970. This
further reduction has to be done in accordance with the provisions of the
Principal Act read with the Reduction Act.

Any pending proceeding, therefore, under the Principal Act will have
c
to be continued and concluded in the aforesaid manner by first calculating
the ceiling area under the Principal Act and then reducing it ·further to the
ceiling under the Reduction Act read with the Principal Act by applying
the provisions of the Principal Act as modified by the Reduction Act; so
that a person does not hold land in excess of the ceiling area prescribed D
under the Principal Act read with the Reduction Act. The holding of the
appellants, therefore, is required to be redetermined in accordance with
the principles laid down by us hereinabove.

The appeals are accordingly partly allowed. The proceedings are E
remanded to the Land Tribunal for determination of the ceiling area of the
appellants in the manner described hereinabove. There will, however, be
no order as to costs. ·

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4960-4965 OF 1994
F
These proceedings pertain to certain properties held by one Papayee
Ammal. Papayee Ammal enjoyed lands which she had inherited as the heir
of her husband and also as the successor- in-interest of J,ier sister Saradam- _
bal. There were disputes between Papayee Ammal and one Victor Jagan-
nathan, the son of her husband's sister, and his children in respect of these G
lands. As a result, a family arrangement was arrived at on 17.9.1959. Under
the family arrangement, certain specified properties were given to Papayee
Ammal for life and the remaining properties were given to Victor jagan-
nathan and his children. After the death of Papayee Ammal, the properties
in which she had a life interest, were to vest in the children of Victor H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.
I
A Jagannathan absolutely. Papayee Ammal, however, had a right to alienate
her properties in respect of which she had a life interest.

After this family arrangement was arrived at, Papayee Ammal, be-
tween 1960 and 1962 alienated certain properties in respect of which she
had a life interest. As a result, in 1964 suits were filed against her by Victor
·B Jagannathan and his children challenging the alienations made by Papayee
Ammal. These alienations, however, have been ultimately upheld by the
High Court.

Papayee Ammal died on 23.6.1965. Victor Jagannathan also died on
C 5.7.1965. In 1966, a draft statement under the Principal Act was published
in respect of the land holding of Papayee Ammal since on the date of the
commencement of the Principal Act, Papayee Ammal was alive and held
lands as a limited owner. Proceedings were taken under the Principal Act
after bringing the heirs of Papayee Ammal on record. Certain lands in
D Vellappakam Village so held by Papayee Ammal and belonging to her
estate were declared as surplus.

Between 1.1.1979 and 27.1.1979 the appellants purchased some of the
lands in Vellappakam Village which have been declared as surplus, from
.E the children of Victor Jagannathan. The final statement, however, in
respect of the holding of Papayee Ammal was published on 27.7.1983. The
appellants and others filed revision petitions under Section 82 before the
Land Commissioner. The Land Commissioner by his order dated 25.9.1984
held that there was no irregularity in the determination of the holding of
Papayee Ammal and that the lands involved in the earlier sales made by
·F Papayee Ammal should be allowed to be retained within the ceiling limit
of 30 standard acres as on 6.4.1960 and the lands involved in the subsequent
sales should be declared as surplus.

The appellants filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Land
· G Commissioner. These petitions were transferred to the Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal by its order dated
17.9.1992 has held that lands held by Papayee Ammal would attract the
provisions of the Principal Act. It has further held that there is nothing
wrong in the proceedings commencing after the death of Papayee Ammal.
H The Tribunal has rejected the contention of the appellants that since no
,,,..,;.·
' . .: .
.....
I-,
/

. \··
V.G.REDDIAR ;v. SfATEOFTN.[MRS.SUJATA. V.MA1{0HAR,J.)
- - --::·. - . - -
__ 363 .

-- proceedings were commenced during the life-time of Papayee Ammal, land A .
. had become vested in the remaindermcn and; therefore. the proceedings
were without jurisdiction. The Tribunal also held that the provisions of the
principal Act alone will apply, notwithstanding the coming into force of the
Reduction Act. In this· connection the Tribunal has relied upon the
' .
prmisions of Section 3(1) of the Reduction Acneferred to above. B

In the present appeals it is this finding of the Tribunal which is under
._._ challenge. . . ' - - · · c--·
- :-·- ·

· It is contended by the appellants that on account_ of the death of
Papayee Ammal in 1%5 the properties vested in the remaindermen before C
the commencement of the Reduction Act. Hence the lands in question
cannot be considered as holdings of_ Papayee Ammal on the dat~ of the
commencement of the Reduction Act. The proceedings, therefore, under
the Principal Act are bad in law and the properties in question have been
validly alienated in their favour by the heirs of Papayee AmiiiaL - D

This contention has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. under
Section 3. Papayee Amrnal was alive 'on the date ~f the -commencement of
the Principal Act and, therefore, her holding was required to be deter-
mined under the Principal Act. The proceedings against the estate of the E
Papayec Ammal were, therefore; rightly commenced under the Principal .
Act after bringing her heirs ~n record. Duruig the pendency of these
proceedings, the Reduction Act ~e illto force. By reason of Section 3(1)
of the Reduction Act, these proceedings for the purpose of determining
the ceiling under th~ Principal Act were required to be continued ilnder
the Principal Act. However, in these proceedings, the·reduced ceiling was F
required to ·be determined under the provisi_ons of the Principal Act read
with the Reduction Act. The pending proceeding, therefore, must proceed
to a conclusion in-the light of both sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 3.
There is only one ·proceeding under both these sub-sections, In that
proceeding, the permissible holding must be first determined as per the G
Principal Act. This holdllig · must, thereafter, be further reduced as
provided in section 3(2) by applying the Principal Act as modified by the
Reduction Act. Hence there is only one proceeding--the one which is
commenced under the Principal Act. If it has not concluded before 15th
February, 1970, it is required to be continued and completed in the above H
- ----;
'\
,, _,
364 SUPREME COURT.REPORTS ___ ~:- (1995) 2S.CR.
,(.
A manner. Since th~ proceeding is one and co~tinuous, the death of Papayee
'
Ammal during the pendency of this· proceeding does not result in the
termination of this proceeding. Section 3{2) merey prescribes a reduced
ceiling and the method of its calculation. It does not contemplate commen·
cement of a fresh proceeding when the proceeding under the Principal Act
B has not come to a conclusion.

The sale transactions in question which took place in January 1979
will clearly have to be taken into account for the purpose of determining ~-
the reduced holding of the estate of Papayee Ammal. Since these sale
transactions have taken place after the new notified date as per the
C Reduction Act and before the final statement, these cannot be excluded
· from the holding of Papayee Ammal.

_. The ratio of the judgment of this court in B.K. V. Radhamani Ammal
v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Coimbatore, [1985) 2 SCC 46 does not
D " apply to the present case. In that case the proceedings under the Principal
Act had come to an end. After the coming into force ~f the Reducti~n
Act, fresh proceedings_ were commenced .under the Principal Act as
amended by the Reduction Act. In the present case, fresh proceedings are
not taken after 151.1970. The proceeding under the Principal Act had not
E been concluded before the commencement of the Reduction Act. It was,
therefore, continued under the Principal Act under section 3(1) read with
Section 3(2). It does not abate on account of the death of Papayee Ammal
during its pendency as -the heirs. and legal representatives of Papayee
Ammal are on record.

F The appeals are accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no
order as to costs. . . •

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3039-40 OF 1995 {Arising out of S.L.P.(C} Nos.
14935-36 of 1994)

G · In the present case, one Cbellamani Ammal, the mother of the
appellant, had filed a return under Section 8(1) of the Principal Act ii --- -
respect of lands held by her. She had filed another return on behalf of the
appellant, who is her adopted son, and who was then a minor. As per
Section 3(14) of the said Principal Act their holdings were clubbed as one_
H unit. There were several proceedings adopted in connection with clubbing

•
{
V.G. REDDIAR v. STATEOFTN. [MRS.SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.] 365

of the two holdings by Chellamani Ammal and the appellant with which A
we are not concerned. During the pendency of these proceedings, the
,,,-
f Reduction Act came into force.

On 30.9.1970 the appellant made a Deed of Declaration of Trust
settling 14.93 acres in favour of E.R. Hindu Elementary School, Trichy. On B
the same date Chellamani Ammal also executed Deed of Declaration of
Trust settling 31.41 acres of her land in favour of E.R. Hindu Elementary
School, Trichy. Both of them claimed that the land which was the subject
..r- matter of the two trusts should be excluded from their holdings under
Section 21-A of the Reduction Act.
~ c
In this connection, Writ·Petition Nos. 652 and 653 of 1977 were filed
by the appellant and his mother before the High Court of Madras. The
High Court by its order dated 7.1.1980 set aside the orders of the Land
Tribunal and remanded both the matters to the Tribunal for fresh· con-
sideration relating to the applicability of section 21-A of the Principal Act D
read with the Reduction Act, to the holdings in question. The tribunal in
turn remitted the proceedings to the Authorised Officer for fresh disposal
in the light of the observations made by the High Court.

The Authorised Officer held that since the proceedings had been
initiated only under the Principal Act, they had to be continued according E
to the provisions of the Principal Act in view of Section 3(1) of the
Reduction Act. He held that Section 21-A which was incorporated in the
Principal Act by the Reduction Act, would not apply to these proceedings.
These findings were upheld by the Land Tribunal as also by the Tamil
Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal. Hence, the present ap- F
peals by special leave have been filed before us.

Section 21-A has been inserted in the Principal Act by the Reduc-
tion Act. The relevant provisions of Section 21-A are as follows :

"Section 21-A: Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 22 G
or in any other provision of this Act and in any other law for the
time being in force, where, after the date of the commencement
of this Act, but before the notified date-

(a) .......................................... . H
\
{

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A (b) ......................................... ..
--.I,
(c) any person has voluntll:rily transferred any land- '1

(i) to any educational institution; or

B (ii) hospital;

of a public nature solely for the purposes of such institution or
hospital ........ such .... transfer shall be valid ......... "

This section overrides all other provisions of the Act including Section 22.
C It will, therefore, override Section 3(1) of the Reduction Act also. Hence,
as a result of Section 21-A, if between 5.2.1970 and 2.10.1970 any land is
transferred voluntarily, inter alia, to any educational institution, such a
transfer shall be valid. The land so transferred is, therefore, excluded from
the holding of any person even though the proceedings against him may
D have commenced under the old (i.e. the Principal) Act. If the proceedings
had not concluded before the Reduction Act came into force, the person
can claim the benefit of Section 21-A

In the case of Sushi/a Devi Ammal and Ors. v. State of Madras, [1993)
suppl. 1 SCC 462 the provisions of Section 21-A were construed by this
E Court. In that case, proceedings under the Principal Act were pending. The
High Court had, in revision, held that there was a material irregularity in
the order in computing the holding which needed to be corrected. These
proeeedings were pending when Section 21-A was enacted by the Reduc-
tion Act. This Court, while interpreting Section 21-A, stated :-
F
"However, the said provision gave, what we may call, a transfer
holiday, for a small period from February 15, 1970 to October 2,
1970 providing that notwithstanding anything contained in Section
22 or in any other provision of this Act, and in any other law for
the time being in force, where any person has effected by means
G of a registered instrument a partition of his holding or part thereof
such partition shall be valid. Now here the family which is a person
under section 3(47) of the Act by means of a registered partition
I '
deed effected a partition on April 29, 1970 within those crucial
dates. It is significant to notice that this provision with its non-
H obstante -clause has aSserted supremacy over all other provisions
V.G. REDDIAR v. SfATE OFT.N. [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.] '367

of the Act... .. " A

[emphasis supplied]

This Court held that Section 21-A would override the provisions of Section
23. this ratio is directly applicable to the present case. Section 21-A will,
therefore, apply to pending proceedings under the Principal Act, not-
B
withstanding the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Reduction Act.

In this connection, a reference has also been made to the case of
M.K Harihar Iyer v. Authorised Officer Land Refonns, Tinmelveli, [1990] 1
SCR 358. In that case appellant-land-owner had land inexcess of 30 C
standard acres as on 6.4.1960. He filed a return as required by the Principal
Act and an enquiry was initiated by the Authorised Officer. Under the said
Act several objections raised by the appellant were rejected and the
Authorised Officer determined the surplus holding of the appellant. There
were various proceedings in connection with this finding of the enquiry D
officer which ultimately went in revision before the High Court. One of the
pleas raised before the High Court was in connection with certain docu-
ments executed by the appellant between 15th of February, 1970 and 2nd
of October, 1970. Section 21-A came to be incorporated in the Principal
Act by reason of the Reduction Act. The High Court held that provisions E
of Section 21-A would have to be applied for determining the ceiling area.
It further held that if the document executed were found to be in order
to defeat the provisions of the Act, the transactions may be declared void
under Section 22 of the Act. This finding of the High Court was challenged
before this Court. This Court considered the provisions of Section 21-A
and Section 22 of the Principal Act as amended by the Reduction Act, and F
held that Section 21-A, which begins with the words - "notwithstanding
anything contained in Section 22" - clearly overrides Section 22. Hence
transactions covered by Section 21-A cannot be inquired into under Sec-
tion 22. In view of the overriding effect of Section 21-A over not only
Section 22, but any other provision of law, it must override Section 3(1). G

Our attention was also drawn to a decision of this Court in the case
of B.K V. Radhamani Ammal (supra). The ratio of this case, however, will
not apply here since in that case, the proceedings under the Principal Act
had already concluded long before the Reduction Act came into operation H
;

)

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S;C.R.

A and the proceedings which were considered by this Court in that case were
fresh proceedings initiated under the Principal Act read with the Reduc-
tion Act.

In the present case, the benefit of Section 21-A is available to the
appellant in respect of the Deeds of Trust executed on 30.9.1970. The
B holding of the appellant, therefore, has to be calculated after applying the
provisions of Section 21-A.

The appeals are accordingly allowed to this extent. The matter is
remanded to the Land Tribunal for a fresh determination· in the light of
C this judgment. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
Looking to the circumstances, the Land Tribunal is directed to
dispose of all these matter expeditiously, preferably within four months.

A.G.- Appeal dismissed.