@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
1. The petitioners have filed the writ petitions, seeking for a direction to consider their representation dated 30.09.2009 and release the lands situate in R.S.Nos.217/11, 210/6, 211/3 and 217/13 belonging to the petitioner in W.P.No.26790/2009 and R.S.Nos.212/1, 210/6, 211/3 belonging to the petitioner in W.P.No.26791/2009 from the Land Ceiling Proceedings and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take possession of the land equal in area from out of the remaining lands belonging to the third respondent, in accordance with the provisions of the Pondicherry Land Reforms Act.
2. Both the writ petitions were admitted on 22.12.2009. On notice from this Court, the second respondent Sub-Collector has filed a counter affidavit dated Nil (August 2010) in each of the writ petition.
3. The claim of the petitioner in the first writ petition was that he purchased the land in various survey numbers referred to in the prayer to the extent of 3 Hectares 66 Ares and 75 Centiars in Manaveli Village, Ariyankuppam Commune from one Abdul Casim under 5 registered sale deeds dated 18.09.2006. The said Abdul Casim had purchased the same from the third respondent during February 2006 and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment until he sold the lands to the petitioner. The petitioner was satisfied with the Encumbrance Certificate produced at the time of purchase as no encumbrance was created on the property. On perusal of the title deeds, he found that they originally belonged to the third respondent and he sold it to the vendor of the petitioner for a valuable consideration under the Registered Sale deed dated 08.02.2006. He bonafide purchased the lands and were also registered in the Registrar Office, Puducherry. During August 2009, when he contacted the Sub-Registrar to ascertain the guideline of the lands to obtain loan, he was informed that it was covered by the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Lands) Act, 1973 (for short Act). The above lands purchased by the petitioner was declared as surplus lands in the final statement dated 04.04.1990 issued u/s 11 of the Act. Even though final statement was issued, no further proceedings were initiated for 18 years and the Final Statement itself was issued on the third respondent only on 18.02.2008. On verification, he also came to know that notification u/s 17(1) was published in the Gazette on 02.12.2008. The original vendor of the property, namely the third respondent has got other lands as per the final statement. Therefore, u/s 22 of the Act, if any person makes a transfer in violation of the provisions of the Act, the Government can take possession of the lands equivalent in area to the land from the possession of such land owner who have sold the lands in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation on 30.09.2009 requesting the Government to take alternative land from the third respondent and release the present land which was purchased by the petitioner, who is a bonafide purchaser.
4. Similar was the case of the petitioner in the second writ petition. In that case also, the purchase was made from the said Abdul Casim who had purchased the land from the original vendor, the third respondent. Therefore, reliance was placed on Section 22 of the Act.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it was stated that the Final Statement in Form-10 u/s 11 of the Land Reforms Act was published in Extra-ordinary Gazette No.66, dated 04.04.1990 itself and the land owner, the assessee was very much aware of the proceedings. The Authorised Officer only with a view to give one more opportunity served copies of the said Gazette. Due to administrative reasons, the proceedings took its own time. But that does not give cause of action for a land owner who was holding the land in surplus of the Act to sell the land. The petitioners are attempting to grab the land by illegal purchase. The purchase of the land is only in the year 2006 which is totally in contravention of the Land Reforms Act. Even at that time of the Land reform proceedings, ample opportunity was given to the land owner for demarcating and notifying the lands which were to be declared as retained portion and the assessee had given the request for classifying those lands which are to be notified as his retained portion. But on the contrary, he had sold both the surplus and the retained portion. It was also stated that the Sub-Registrar who registered the property cannot prevent registration of the land as per the Registration Act. Section 22 of the Registration Act came to be interpreted by Courts that the Registrar has no such power and it is only the purchaser who has to be beware of such purchase. The Land Reforms Act was intended to take over the surplus land beyond the ceiling limit so as to distribute the same to landless and other person in the rural areas in accordance with the Rules.
6. In fact the final statement having been published in the year 1990, any sale, transfer or other dispossession of the land declared as surplus will be invalid in terms of Section 22(1) of the Land Reforms Act. Section 22(1) of the Land Reforms Act reads as follows:-
22 (1) Except where a person is permitted in writing, by the authorised officer, a person, holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him u/s 4, shall not, after the commencement of this Act, transfer by sale, gift or otherwise or make any partition of any land held by him or any part thereof until the excess land, which is to be acquired by the Government u/s 17, has been determined and taken possession of by or on behalf of the Government.
7. In the present case, the petitioners are third parties and purchase of the lands by the petitioners'' vendor from the original owner itself is illegal and void. The nature of the sale referred to by the petitioners u/s 22 is related to original sale, which means the petitioners'' vendor himself could not have purchased the same from the third respondent. Infact the impact of such provision came to be noticed in respect of the Land reforms Act of Tamil Nadu by the Supreme Court in
16.In the interpretation of Section 22 we too are Portia men. For this reason we reverse the view of the High Court that Section 22 will not apply to nullify any transaction of transfer or partition unless it is further shown that it is sham, nominal or bogus. Nor do we agree with Shree Ramamurthi that even if a transaction defeats the ceiling provisions, it may still be valid if the transfer is, from an individual point of view bona fide. The short reply is that from the community#s angle, especially the landless community#s angle hungering for allotment, the alienation, however necessary for the individual, is not bona fide vis-a-vis the community.
17.Therefore, we allow the appeal in the light of the interpretation we have adopted, restore the Tribunal#s holding and rule that if any transfer defeats the provisions of the Act by reducing the extent of surplus land in excess of the ceiling available from any person such transaction, bona fide or not, is void in the matter of computation of the permissible area and the surplus area. May be, that the transaction may be good for other purposes or may not be. The Authorised Officer is within his power if he ignores it as void for purposes of Section 22 Section 7 and other ceiling-related provisions.
8. The Supreme Court also held that the Division Bench''s judgment under appeal holding that the said provision only hits malafide transfer and not bonafide transfer was not proper as the Act is intended to prevent any kind of transfer to defeat the purpose of land ceiling laws. Even otherwise, the only person who has locus standi to question such action of the authorities under the Act is the owner of the land who has been issued with the final statement in the year 1990. As noted in the counter affidavit, the third respondent has not asked for any exchange. He has not only sold the surplus land but even the land which are to be retained to him as per the request. Hence, this Court do not consider the petitioners have made out any case.
9. In the light of the legal provisions, the writ petitions are misconceived and bereft of legal reasons. Accordingly, both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
