R.K. Varma, J.
This is an appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment and decree dated 19-7-1977 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shajapur in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/73 whereby the learned lower Appellate Court has partly allowed the State''s appeal and modified the judgment and decree dated 22-2-1973 passed by the Trial Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Agar in Civil Suit No. 16-A of 1970.
The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows :--
The plaintiffs who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal, filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 15-11-1969 passed by the Revenue Authorities under the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') was bad in law and was not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiffs'' case was that they purchased the lands in suit by a Registered Sale-deed dated 10th June, 1959 from defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 3) who was the manager of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 (i.e. respondents Nos. 4 and 5).
In Ceiling Case No. 90/63-64 A-90 commenced against the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5) before the Competent Authority (Sub-Divisional Officer, Agar), a draft statement showing the lands held in excess of the Ceiling limit was published, apparently u/s 11 of the Act. The plaintiffs filed objection to the draft statement within time and submitted that the suit land had been purchased by them by a Registered Sale-deed dated 10th June, 1959 and the same could not be declared surplus but the Competent Authority while deciding the aforesaid Ceiling Case by order dated 15-11-1969 also rejected the objection of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiff, therefore, filed the instant suit apparently under sub-section (5) of section 11 of the Act in the Trial Court to have the order of the Competent Authority set aside. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit and set aside the order of the Competent Authority dated 15-11-1969. On appeal filed by the State the learned lower Appellate Court modified the decree of the Trial Court holding that the Competent Authority''s order dated 15-11-1969 is set aside only to the extent it affects the rights of the plaintiffs as per their objection filed by them and that the remaining portion of that order will remain good.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court upholding the Trial Court''s judgment and decree in so far as it accepted the objection filed by the plaintiffs relating to the suit lands, the State has filed this Second Appeal.
The learned Competent Authority in its order dated 15-11-1969 aforesaid had held that the sale-deed dated 10-6-1959 in favour of the objectors Bapulal and Harisingh was void, being in contravention of section 70 of Madhya Bharat Bhumi Aagam Tatha Krashakadhikar Vidhan, Samvat 2007 which was in force at that time and consequently rejected the objection filed in the agricultural holding of the original land-holders for the purposes of determining ceiling area declaring surplus.
In the instant suit filed by the plaintiffs for setting aside the order of the competent authority, the learned Trial Court has held that the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to inquire into the transfer of the suit lands in favour of the plaintiff since the transfer was effected prior to 15-9-1959 which was the date of publication of the Act and consequently, the Competent Authority''s finding that the transfer by registered sale effected on behalf of the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 to the plaintiffs-objectors was void, was not sustainable, being without jurisdiction.
In appeal filed by the defendant the learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the finding of the Trial Court in respect of the suit lands, holding that u/s 4 of the Act the Competent Authority had the power to inquire into the transfers of Agricultural lands effected by the holder during the period after 15-9-1959 (the date of publication of the Bill) and before 15-11-1961 (the date of commencement of the Act) and it had no jurisdiction to inquire into a transfer of land effected prior to 15-9-1959.
The learned Government Advocate appearing for the defendant-appellant has contended that the view taken by the Courts below is not sustainable since the transfer made in favour of the plaintiffs by the holders ought to be a legally valid transfer if it has to be excluded from the agricultural holding of the holder which is subjected to determination of Ceiling area in the hands of the holder under the Act.
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents has on the other hand, submitted that section 4 of the Act envisages inquiry by the competent authority into such transfers or partitions as are made after the publication of the Bill but before the commencement of the Act and that the Competent Authority is empowered to declare such transfer or partition to be void only if it finds that the transfer or the partition, as the case may be, was made in anticipation of and to defeat the provisions of the Act. There is no provision in the Act empowering the Competent Authority to inquire into transfers made prior to the publication of the Bill and there is no power conferred on it to declare any such transfer to be void. The transfer of the suit lands made in favour of the plaintiffs in the instant case being of 10th June, 1959 is prior to the publication of me Bill and as such, does not fall within the purview of section 4 of the Act and, therefore, it was not competent for the authority to declare the transfer of the suit lands to be void.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. The power of enquiry into a transfer and the power to declare such transfer void is vested in the Competent Authority u/s 4 of the Act. But the limits of its power can be gathered by reference to that section which may usefully be reproduced hereunder :
4. Transfers or partitions made after the publication of the Bill but before the commencement of this Act. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, where after the date of publication of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Bill, 1959 (25 of 1959), in the Gazette, but before the commencement of this Act, any holder has transferred any land held by him by way of sale, gift, exchange or otherwise or has effected a partition of his holding or part thereof, the competent authority may, after notice to the holders and other persons affected by such transfer or partition and after such enquiry as it thinks fit to make, declare the transfer of partition to be void if it finds that the transfer or the partition, as the case may be, was made in anticipation of and to defeat the provisions of this Act.
(2) ..... ..... ..... .....
.... ..... ..... .....
-x- -x- -x-
From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that the enquiry contemplated u/s 4 of the Act is limited to transfer made after the publication of the Bill and even in respect of such transfer, its scope is narrow and confined to finding whether the transfer was made in anticipation of and to defeat the provisions of the Act and if the competent authority after enquiry finds the transfer to be in anticipation of and to defeat the provisions of the Act, it has the power to declare such transfer to be void on that ground.
Thus, it must be borne in mind that the enquiry u/s 4 of the Act pertains only to such transfers as are made after the publication of the Bill. The transfer of suit lands in the instant case, being of 10-6-1959, i.e. prior to publication of the Bill, falls outside the scope of the enquiry u/s 4 of the Act. Therefore, the competent authority has clearly exceeded its powers in contravention of section 4 of the Act in having made an enquiry into the transfer of suit lands. Apart from section 4 of the Act, there is, however, no general power conferred under the Act empowering the Competent Authority to adjudicate as a Civil Court upon the legality or validity of a registered sale-deed or to declare a transfer to be void. The power of enquiry and adjudication is limited to the transfers made after the publication of the Bill with reference to the question whether such transfer was made in anticipation of and to defeat the provisions of the Act.
In view of the discussion aforesaid, the enquiry by the Competent Authority into the validity of the registered sale deed in respect of suit lands executed on 10-6-1959 i.e. prior to the publication of the Bill in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, is clearly outside the purview of section 4 of the Act and is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below must be upheld.
In the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
