2020 INSC 0612
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.5650 OF 2010
DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS.              … APPELLANTS
V ERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.               … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
N.V. R AMANA , J.   
1.         The  present  appeal  arises  out  of  the   impugned  judgment  dated
25.04.2008,   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   for
Rajasthan   at   Jodhpur   in   D.B.   Civil   Special   Appeal   No.   264   of
1999   (Writ)   wherein   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court
allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and upheld the
1

order   dated   02.07.1990   passed   by   the   Board   of   Revenue   while
setting aside the order dated 02.04.1997 of the Single Judge.
2.       The   facts   underlying   the   appeal   are   as   follows:   Daulat   Singh
(since   deceased   and   now   represented   through   his   legal
representatives   and   who   shall   hereinafter   for   the   sake   of
convenience be referred to as the appellant) was owner of 254.2
Bighas   of   land.   On   19.12.1963,   he   gifted   away   127.1   Bighas   of
land   to   his   son,   Narpat   Singh.   After   the   said   transfer,   the
appellant was left with 17.25 standard acres of land, which was
below the prescribed limit under the Ceiling Act.
3.       Although,   a   proceeding   was   initiated   under   the   ceiling   law,   the
same was  dropped on  15.04.1972 by   the Court  of Deputy  Sub­
Divisional   Officer,   Pali,   Rajasthan.   While   dropping   the
proceedings, the Court observed that, the amendment of Section
30DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ( hereinafter “Tenancy
Act   of   1955” )   was   effective   from   31.12.1969,   and   since   the   gift
deed   was   executed   before   the   aforesaid   amendment,   the
aforesaid transfer was valid. 
4.     However,   by   notice   dated   15.03.1982,   the   Revenue   Ceiling
Department   re­opened   the   case   of   the   appellant.   The   Revenue
2

Ceiling Department while issuing the aforesaid notice stated that
the   earlier   order   dated   15.04.1972,   passed   by   the   Court   of
Deputy   Sub­Divisional   Officer,   Pali   was   rendered   without
investigating  whether the land transfers are recognizable as per
the   provisions   of   Section   30   of   the   Tenancy   Act   of   1955.   The
same   being   in   contravention   of   the   provisions,   needs   to   be
reopened.
5.       The   Court   of   Additional   District   Collector,   Pali   vide   order   dated
28.10.1988,   declared   that   the   mutation   of   the   land   done   in
favour   of   the   son   of   the   appellant   was   invalid   as   there   was   no
acceptance of the gift. It was declared therein that the appellant
was holding 11 standard acres of extra land over and above the
ceiling   limit.   The   Collector,   therefore,   directed   the   appellant   to
handover   vacant   possession   of   the   aforesaid   11   standard   acres
of extra land to the Tahsildar, Pali. 
6.       Aggrieved   by   the   aforesaid   order,   the   appellant   preferred   an
appeal   before   the   Board   of   Revenue.   Vide   order   dated
02.07.1990,   the   Board   of   Revenue,   modified   the   earlier   order
dated   28.10.1988,   and   upon   re­calculation   held   that   the
3

appellant  is holding  4.5 standard acres of  land in  excess of  the
ceiling limit.
7.         Aggrieved,   the   appellant   preferred   a   Writ   Petition   under   Article
227   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   1950   before   the   High   Court.
Vide   order   dated   02.04.1997,   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the
High  Court  allowed  the writ  petition  preferred by   the appellant.
The Court held that the case was beyond the purview of Section
6   of   The   Rajasthan   Imposition   of   Ceiling   on   Agricultural
Holdings   Act,   1973   ( hereinafter   “Ceiling   Act   of   1973” )   because
the land was transferred by way of gift before 26.09.1970. It was
further held that the aforesaid transfer of land, by the appellant
in   favour   of   his   son   by   virtue   of   a   registered   gift   deed,   being
bona fide , was valid in the eyes of law. The learned Single Judge,
therefore   held   that   there   is   no   surplus   land   which   is   available
with the appellant which can be resumed.
8.    Thereafter, the respondents preferred an appeal against the above
order   before   the   Division   Bench,   which   allowed   the   appeal
holding that the gift deed was invalid as the son of the appellant
was   unaware   about   the   same.   The   Division   Bench   vide
impugned   judgment   dated   25.04.2008,   held   that   the   learned
4

Single Judge passed the judgment in ignorance of the provisions
of   Section   30C   and   30D   of  the   Tenancy  Act   of  1955.  Therefore,
the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order passed
by   the   Single   Judge   Bench   for   being   untenable   and   upheld   the
order passed by the Board of Revenue.
9.      Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal by way
of Special Leave Petition before this Court.
10.     The counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that the transfer of
land   was   effectuated   way   back   in   1963.   The   Division   Bench
clearly   erred   in   not   recognizing   the   transfer   of   17.25   acres   in
favor   of   the   appellant's   son   Narpat   Singh,   who   was   a   major   at
the   time   the   gift   deed   was   executed,   during   his   lifetime,   as   per
the requirements of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882. There was an implied acceptance because this is a case of
transfer   between   father   and   son.   On   the   basis   of   facts   of   this
case,   it   is   proved   that   the   son   was   living   separately   with   his
family. Moreover, such a transfer does not violate the provisions
of   Section   30C   and   Section   30D   of   the   Tenancy   Act   of   1955.
Lastly,   the   counsel   also   pleaded   that   the   notice   given   for
reopening of the ceiling case was beyond the period of limitation.
5

11.       On   the   other   hand,   the   counsel   on   behalf   of   the   Respondents
argued that the Division Bench rightly upheld the order  passed
by   the   Board   of   Revenue   which   was   passed   after   detailed
assessment   of   the   facts   and   appropriate   reliance   upon   Section
30C   and   30D   of   the   Tenancy   Act   of   1955.   The   respondents
submitted that the findings of facts could not be interfered with
in  a  writ  proceeding. The  respondents  also  stated that,  issue of
limitation   was   never   argued   by   the   appellant   in   the   Courts
below.   Be   that   as   it   may,   the   notice   was   issued   within   the
limitation period.
12.       Having   heard   the   learned   counsel,   three   important   issues   arise
for our consideration:
i. Whether   reopening   of   the   case   was   beyond   the   period
of limitation?
ii. Whether   the   registered   gift   deed   executed   by   the
appellant is valid in the eyes of law?
iii. Whether   the   judgment   of   learned   Single   Judge   is   in
ignorance of the provisions of Sec 30C and 30D of the
Tenancy Act of 1955?
I SSUE   NO .1   
13.       Section   15   of   the   Ceiling   Act   of   1973   confers   upon   the   State
Government   the   power   to   re­open   the   cases,   if   it   is   satisfied   that   the
6

earlier order was in contravention with the provisions of the Act and is
prejudicial   to   the   State   interest.   The   aforesaid   direction   to   re­open
cases must be preceded by a show­cause notice served upon the person
concerned.     However,   the   proviso   clause   states   that   no   notice   can   be
issued   after   the   expiry   of   five   years   from   the   date   of   the   final   order
sought to be re­opened or after the expiry of 30 th
 June 1979, whichever
is later. 
14.       Therefore,   the   provision   mandates   that,   after   the   expiry   of   five
years   from   the   date   of   final   order   sought   to   be   re­opened,   or   after   the
expiry of 30 th
 June 1979, whichever is later, no notice for re­opening of
such   cases   can   be   issued.   Therefore,   the   relevant   dates   for
determination of the issue of limitation is the date of order sought to be
reopened and the date of issuance of show­cause notice under Section
15 of the Ceiling Act of 1973.
15. During the course of the hearing and on a query raised by the
Bench, the respondents have brought to our notice the xerox copy of the
Notice   dated   20.11.1976   issued   by   Deputy   Government   Secretary,
Revenue (Billing), Rajasthan.
16, It ought to be noted that, the aforesaid notice was sent to
the appellant on 20.11.1976, that is within five years of the earlier
7

order   dated   15.04.1972.   Further,   the   notice   also   satisfied   the
requirements   as   provided   under   Section   15   of   the   Ceiling   Act   of
1973, and hence was valid in the eyes of law. The case was, thus,
re­opened   within   the   time   period   stipulated   under   Section   15   of
the Ceiling Act of 1973. Therefore, issue no.1 is answered in favour
of the respondent­State. 
I SSUE   NO .2   
17. The High Court, while passing the impugned order, held
the registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963 to be invalid on the basis
that   it   did   not   meet   the   requirements   as   provided   under   Section
122   of   the   Transfer   of   Property   Act,   1882.   The   Division   Bench
while upholding the observations of the Board of Revenue, further
observed that a perusal of the gift deed does not show acceptance
of gift by the donee, rather it seems that donee was even unaware
of the gift. 
18. Section   122   of   the   Transfer   of   Property   Act,   1882
provides that:
122.   “Gift”   defined .   —   “Gift”   is   the
transfer   of   certain   existing   movable   or
immovable   property   made   voluntarily   and
without  consideration, by  one  person,  called
8

the donor, to another, called the donee, and
accepted by or on behalf of the donee.
Acceptance   when   to   be   made .   —   Such
acceptance must be made during the lifetime
of   the   donor   and   while   he   is   still   capable   of
giving.
If   the   donee   dies   before   acceptance,   the
gift is void.
19. Section   123   of   the   Transfer   of   Property   Act,   1882
provides that:
123.   Transfer   how   effected .   —For   the
purpose   of   making   a   gift   of   immovable
property,   the   transfer   must   be   effected   by   a
registered instrument signed by or on behalf
of   the   donor,   and   attested   by   at   least   two
witnesses.
For   the   purpose   of  making   a   gift   of  movable
property,  the  transfer  may  be  effected  either
by   a   registered   instrument   signed   as
aforesaid or by delivery.
Such delivery may be made in the same way
as goods sold may be delivered.
20 . Section   122   of   the   Transfer   of   Property   Act,   1882
provides   that   for   a   gift   to   be   valid,   it   must   be   gratuitous   in
nature   and   must   be   made   voluntarily.   The   said   giving   away
implies   a   complete   dispossession   of   the   ownership   in   the
9

property   by   the   donor.   Acceptance   of   a   gift   by   the   donee   can
be done anytime during the lifetime of the donor. 
21. Section 123 provides that for a gift of immovable property
to   be   valid,   the   transfer   must   be   effectuated   by   means   of   a
registered   instrument   bearing   the   signature   of   the   donor   and
attested by at least two witnesses.
22. A   three­Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Naramadaben   Maganlal   Thakker   v.   Pranjivandas
Maganlal Thakker , (1997) 2 SCC 255   had held that:
6.   Acceptance  by  or  on   behalf  of  the  donee
must   be   made   during   the   lifetime   of   the
donor and while he is still capable of giving.
7.   It   would   thus   be   clear   that   the
execution   of   a   registered   gift   deed,
acceptance of the gift and delivery of the
property,   together   make   the   gift
complete.   Thereafter,   the   donor   is
divested   of   his   title   and   the   donee
becomes   the   absolute   owner   of   the
property.
( emphasis supplied )
23. The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned
judgment   upheld   the   findings   of   the   Board   of   Revenue
wherein   it   held   that   there   was   no   valid   acceptance   by   the
donee. The Additional District Collector held that there was no
10

semblance   of   acceptance   in   the   gift   deed.   On   appeal,   the
Board  of  Revenue  held  that,  “ it   is  irrelevant   that  after  the  gift
the  land  remained  in  possession  of  the   donee  or that   he   got   it
mutated in his name .”. The Division Bench of the High Court,
relying on the aforesaid observation, stated that there was no
valid   acceptance   as   it   seems   like   the   donee   was   unaware
about the gift deed itself.
24. At the outset, it ought to be noted that Section 122 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 neither defines acceptance, nor
does it prescribe any particular mode for accepting the gift.
25. The   word   acceptance   is   defined   as   “ is   the   receipt   of   a
thing   offered   by   another   with   an   intention   to   retain   it,   as
acceptance   of   a   gift. ”   (See   Ramanatha   P.   Aiyar:   The   Law
Lexicon, 2 nd
 Edn., page 19 ). 
26. The   aforesaid   fact   can   be   ascertained   from   the
surrounding   circumstances   such   as   taking   into   possession
the property by the donee or by being in the possession of the
gift   deed   itself.   The   only   requirement   stipulated   here   is   that,
the   acceptance   of   the   gift   must   be   effectuated   within   the
lifetime of the donor itself.
11

 
27. Hence, being an act of receiving willingly, acceptance can
be inferred by the implied conduct of the donee. The aforesaid
position   has   been   reiterated   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Asokan v. Lakshmikutty , (2007) 13 SCC 210  
14.   Gifts   do   not   contemplate   payment   of
any   consideration   or   compensation.   It   is,
however, beyond any doubt or dispute that
in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance
thereof   is   essential.   We   must,   however,
notice   that   the   Transfer   of   Property   Act
does   not   prescribe   any   particular   mode
of   acceptance.   It   is   the   circumstances
attending   to   the   transaction   which   may
be   relevant   for   determining   the
question. There may be various means to
prove   acceptance   of   a   gift.   The
document   may   be   handed   over   to   a
donee,   which   in   a   given   situation   may
also   amount   to   a   valid   acceptance.   The
fact   that   possession   had   been   given   to
the   donee   also   raises   a   presumption   of
acceptance.
( emphasis supplied )
28 . In the present case, the gift deed itself contained certain
recitals as mentioned below:
“…Out   of   the   aforesaid   land   in   all   the
khasra's   1/2   part   means   50   percent   I   am
giving you in gift being my younger son with
my pleasure. My elder son Shri Babu Singh
has   no   objection   to   this   gift   …   From   today
12

you   are   the   owner   of   the   half   of   the   land
gifted   to   you   and   you   will   have   possession
hereafter.   You   have   the   complete   right   over
the aforesaid land for cultivation from today
onward.   Now   you   get   the   gifted   land
mutated   in   your   name…   These   lands   have
not been sold or under Will or under the gift
earlier.   Further   I   state   that   the   aforesaid
land   is   free   from   any   debt   liability…   The
registration   of   the   aforesaid   gift   has   been
done   by   me   in   my   sound   physical   and
mental   health   with   consent   without   any
undue coercion and pressure from anyone. I
have gifted the aforesaid land with my sweet
will and wish…”
These   recitals   clearly   indicate   that   donor   intended   to   part   with
ownership and possession immediately after the execution of the
gift deed. 
29. In   order   to   show   acceptance,   the   counsel   for   the
appellant   drew   our   attention   to   the   mutation   records.   The
Mutation   entry   in   the   Revenue   Record   of   Gram   Sedriya,
District Pali dated 28.10.1968 clearly reflects that half portion
of  appellant's land  was  bestowed  as a  gift  by  the  appellant  to
his   son   through   a   registered   instrument   of   gift   dated
19.12.1963. 
30. Furthermore,   the   statement   dated   31.08.1984,   rendered
by   the   appellant­donor   before   the   Court   of   Additional   District
13

Magistrate indicates that the donee was already a major at the
time   of   the   execution   of   the   gift   deed.   He   further   stated   that
after execution of the gift deed the donee started cultivating on
the same.
31. The   aforesaid   statement   of   the   appellant­donor   is
completely supported by the statement made by the donee on
15.12.1988 before the Court of Additional District Magistrate.
Therein, the donee clearly stated that, as he did not get along
with his step­mother, he started living separately and the land
was   transferred   to   him   by   virtue   of   gift   deed   was   under   his
possession and he was cultivating the same.
32. Therefore,   the   abovementioned   circumstances   clearly
indicate that there was an acceptance of the gift by the donee
during the lifetime of the donor. Not only the gift deed in itself
contained   recitals   about   transfer   of   possession,   but   also   the
mutation   records   and   the   statements   of   the   both   the   donor
and  donee indicate that,  there has been an  acceptance of the
gift by conduct.
33. The respondents failed to bring on record any evidence to
rebut the fact that the donee was in enjoyment of the property.
14

In   light   of   the   same,   the   learned   Single   Judge   Bench   took   a
plausible   view   that,   it   was   a   transfer   between   a   father   and   a
son   and   there   was   a   valid   acceptance   of   the   gift   when   the
donee­son started living separately. Lastly, it ought to be noted
that   apart   from   the   point   of   acceptance   by   the   donee   as   held
above   since   the   deed   is   registered,   bears   the   signature   of   the
donor   and   has   been   attested   by   two   witnesses,   the
requirements   under   Section   123   of   the   Transfer   of   Property
Act, 1882 have been satisfied. In line with the aforementioned
observations,   issue   no.2   is   answered   in   favour   of   the
appellant.
I SSUE   NO .3   
34. The   learned   Division   Bench,   while   setting   aside   the
judgment   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   observed   that   the
learned   Single   Judge   passed   the   order   in   ignorance   of   the
provisions of Section 30C and 30D of the Tenancy Act of 1955.
However,   the   counsel   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   has   argued
that the transfer of land made by the appellant to his son does
not   violate   the   terms   of   Section   30C   and   Section   30D   as
15

contained   in   Chapter   III­B   of   the   Tenancy   Act   of   1955   (since
repealed   by   the   Rajasthan   Imposition   of   Ceiling   on
Agricultural Holdings Act,1973) as such a transfer satisfies the
test of Section 30DD of the Tenancy Act of 1955.
35. Chapter   III   B   of   the   Tenancy   Act   of   1955,   comprising   of
Sections 30B to 30J deals with restrictions on holding land in
excess   of   ceiling   limit.   Section   30C   indicates   the   extent   of
ceiling area. This section provides that for  a family  consisting
of   five   or   less   members,   the   ceiling   area   would   be   thirty
standard   acres.   When   a   family   exceeds   five   members,   five
acres   of   ceiling   area   shall   be   extended   for   every   additional
member,   however,   such   area   cannot   extend   beyond   sixty
standard acres.
36. Section   30D   provides   that   all   transfers,   except   those
which   are   specified   under   sub­section   (1)   are   not   to   be
recognized   for   determination   of   holding   with   respect   to   the
ceiling   area.   Thereafter,   Section   30DD,   a   subsequent
amendment   to   the   Tenancy   Act   of   1955   provides   further
exceptions to the general bar under Section 30D.
16

37. It   is   pertinent   for   us   to   have   a   look   at   the   relevant
Sections 30D and 30DD. The Sections read as follows: 
30D.   Certain   transfers   not   to   be   recognised
for fixing ceiling area under Section 30C.­­
(1)   For   the   purpose   of   determining   the
ceiling   area   in   relation   to   a   person   under
Section   30C,   any   voluntary   transfer
effected   by   him   on   or   after   25­2­1958 ,
otherwise than­
(i) By way of partition, or
(ii)   In   favour   of   a   person   who   was   a
landless   person   before   the   said   date
and   continued   to   be   so   till   the   date   of
transfer, 
of   the   whole   or   a   part   of   his   holding   shall
be   deemed   to   be   a   transfer   calculated   to
defeat   the   provisions   of   this   Chapter   and
shall   not   be   recognised   and   taken   into
consideration;   and   the   burden   of   proving
whether   any   such   transfer   falls   under
clause   (i)   or   clause   (ii)   shall   lie   on   the
transferor:
Provided   that   if   by   way   any   such
transfer as is mentioned in clause (ii) land
in   excess   of   the   ceiling   area   applicable   to
the transferee has been transferred to him,
such   transfer   to   the  extent  of   such   excess
shall   not   be   recognised   or   taken   into
consideration   for   the   purpose   of   this   sub­
section:
17

Provided   further   that   no   such   transfer
as   is   mentioned   in  clause   (ii)  shall   also  so
taken into consideration or recognised if it
has been made after 9­12­1959.
…
30DD. Certain transfers to be recognized.­­
Notwithstanding   anything   to   the   contrary
contained   in   Section   30D,   for   the   purpose   of
determining   the   ceiling   area   in   relation   to   a
person under Section 30C,­
(i)   every   transfer   of   land   not
exceeding   thirty   standard   acres
made   by   a   person   upto   the   thirty
first   day   of   December,   1969   in
favour   of   an   agriculturist   domiciled
in   Rajasthan   or   in   favour   of   his   son
or   brother   intending   to   take   to   the
profession of agriculture and capable
of   cultivating   land   personally   and
who had attained the age of majority
on or before the said date; and
(ii)   every   transfer   to   the   extent   as
aforesaid   made  by   a  person   before  the
first   day   of   June,   1970   of   land
comprised   in   groves   or   farms   of   the
nature referred to in clauses (a), (b), (d)
and (e) of sub­section (1) of Section 30­
J   as   it   stood   prior   to   the
commencement   of   the   Rajasthan
Tenancy   (Second   Amendment)   Act,
1970 and acquired before the first day
of   May,   1959   in   favour   of   his   son   or
18

brother   fulfilling   the   conditions
mentioned   in   clause   (i)   and   who
attains the age of majority on or before
the first of the aforementioned dates, 
shall also be recognized.
Explanation   ­   I   The   expression
"agriculturist"   in   this   section   shall
mean   a   person   who   earns   his
livelihood   wholly   or   mainly   from
agriculture   and   cultivates   land   by
his   own   labour   or   by   the   labour   of
any   member   of   his   family   or   along
with   such   labour   as   aforesaid   with
the   help   of   hired   labour   or   servant
on wages payable in cash or in kind
and   shall   include   an   agricultural
labourer and a village artisan.
II.   The   expression   "domiciled   in
Rajasthan"   in   this   section   shall
mean   a   person   who   permanently
resides   in   Rajasthan   since   before
the commencement of this Act.
38. As   discussed   earlier,   Section   30C   of   the   Tenancy   Act   of
1955   provides   for   the   ceiling   limit   of   30   standard   acres   for   a
family   of   five   members   or   less.   The   appellant   admittedly   was
having   a   family   of   less   than   five   members   and   was   originally
holding   around   34.4   standard   acres.   Subsequently,   by   virtue
19

of   registered   gift   deed   dated   19.12.1963,   the   appellant   had
transferred around 17.25 standard acres to his son. 
39. Section   30D   provides   that   any   transfer,   on   or   after
25.02.1958,   other   than   the   ones   provided   in   sub­section   1(i)
and   1(ii)   shall   be   deemed   to   have   been   entered   to   defeat   the
purpose   of   ceiling   act.   Such   transactions   were   declared   to   be
void.   The   aforesaid   two   exceptions   being   transfer   by   partition
and transfer to a landless person. 
40. However,   Section   30DD   provides   further   exceptions   to
Section   30D   as   it   recognizes  certain   transfer  after   the   cut­off
date   provided   under   Section   30D.   Section   30DD   recognizes
transfers of area up to 30 standard acres made in favour of an
agriculturalist,   his   son   or   brother   who   are   capable   of   doing
agriculture   and   also   intend   to   take   up   agriculture   as   a
profession.   However,   such   transfer   must   have   been   made
before 31.12.1969 and  the  transferee must have attained the
age of majority on or before the aforesaid date.
41. In the present case, the respondents have submitted that
the   transfer   is   barred   under   Section   30D,   therefore   the   State
has a right of resumption over the excess area of 4.5 acres as
20

per   Section   30C.   On   the   contrary,   the   appellant   has   argued
that the transfer was protected under Section 30DD.
42. Our   attention   is   drawn   again   to   the   registered   gift   deed
dated 19.12.1963. The gift deed itself contains the recitals that
“…The   aforesaid   land   which   is   of   my
khatedari   (ownership)   and   on   which   I   am
carrying   out   cultivation   and   is   in   my
possession. Out of the aforesaid land in all
the   khasra's   1/2   part   means   50   percent   I
am giving you in gift being my younger son
with my pleasure.…From today you are the
owner   of   the   half   of   the   land   gifted   to   you
and you will have possession hereafter.  You
have   the   complete   right   over   the
aforesaid land for cultivation from today
onward .   Now   you   get   the   gifted   land
mutated in your name.”
(emphasis supplied)
43. It   is,   thus,   apparent   that   the   legislature   has   carved   out
two separate categories of lands, one which is includable and
other which is outside the purview of ceiling laws. Once such
a classification has been made, with their being no challenge
to its vires, it is the solemn duty of every authority to give full
effect   to   the   same,   in   both   letter   and   spirit.   Although,   it   is
possible     that   there  can   be  a   voluntary  transfer   which   would
meet   the   qualifications   of   both   Sections   30D   and   Section
21

30DD,   however,   it   is   significant   to   note   that   Section   30DD
opens up with a  non­obstante  clause  with overriding effect on
Section 30D, as a result of which, any land included within its
purview would be protected from the rigors of Section 30D of
the Tenancy Act of 1955. Therefore, if the appellant succeed in
its endeavor  to establish that the transfer  was covered under
Section   30DD   of   the   Tenancy   Act   of   1955,   then   such
transferred   land   has   to   be   exempted   from   computation   of
confiscable land, irrespective of the fact that it falls within the
ceiling   limit   as   prescribed   under   Section   30D   of   the   Tenancy
Act of 1955.
44 . Another   significant   piece   of   evidence   is   the   statement   of
the   transferor­appellant   dated   31.08.1984,   wherein   he   has
stated   that   the   transferee­son   was   living   separately   and   was
cultivating   the   aforesaid   gifted   property.   It   is   also   mentioned
that   the   transferee   is   in   possession   of   an   ox   and   equipments
for   ploughing   and   agriculture.   The   aforesaid   facts   have   been
reiterated   by   the   transferee   as   well   vide   his   statement   dated
15.12.1988,   wherein   he   has   clearly   stated   that,   he   is   in
22

independent   possession   of   the   gifted   property   and   has   been
cultivating the said land.
45. The aforesaid pieces of evidence clearly indicate that due
to certain family issues, the appellant and his son were living
separately.   During   such   separation,   when   the   transferee­son
had   already   attained   the  age   of   majority,   the   appellant­owner
of the land, who was an agriculturalist himself, transferred the
aforesaid   land   in   favour   of   his   son,   so   as   to   enable   him   to
cultivate   the   same.   The   statements   of   transferor   and   the
transferee   clearly   indicate   that   the   transferee   had   the
equipment   and   skills   and   was   sustaining   himself   as   an
agriculturalist. 
46. Lastly,   it   must   be   taken   into   consideration   that,   the
aforesaid   transfer   was   executed   way   before   the   cut­off   date
stipulated under Section 30DD   i.e . 31.12.1969. Therefore, the
registered gift deed dated 19.12.1963 was a   bona fide   transfer
squarely   covered   within   the   ambits   of   Section   30DD,   which
intended   to   protect   the   rights   of   agriculturalists.   Issue   no.   3,
stands  answered in favour  of the appellant,  as the  transfer  is
23

not   invalid   as   it   stands   protected   as   per   the   provision   of
Section 30DD of the Tenancy Act of 1955.
47. In light of the aforesaid findings, the decision rendered by
the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside.
The   transfer   of   the   land   being   valid   under   Section   30DD     of
the Tenancy Act of 1955, the ceiling area of the appellant falls
within the ceiling limit as provided under Section 30C.
48. There is no gainsaying that Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of
1973 also does not advance the case of the State. Firstly, the
repeal   of   Chapter   III­B   of   the   Tenancy   Act   of   1955   through
Section   40   of   the   Ceiling   Act   of   1973   is   not   retrospective.
Hence,   the   provisions   of   the   Ceiling   Act   of   1973   are   not
attracted   in   the   present   case   as   the   case   was   re­opened   and
decided   under   the   provisions   of   the   of   Tenancy   Act   of   1955.
Secondly,   Section   6   of   the   Ceiling   Act   of   1973   declares   that
every   transfer   of   land   including   by   way   of   gift,   made   on   or
after   26­09­1970   and   before   01­01­1973,   shall   be   deemed   to
have been  made to  defeat the  provisions  of the  Ceiling   Act of
1973.   In   the   instant   case,   the   gift   deed   was   executed   on   19­
12­1963,   that   is   much   before   26­09­1970.   Therefore   also,
24

Section   6   of   the   Ceiling   Act   of   1973   does   not   affect   the
transfer of land by the appellant­donor in favour of the donee­
son.   Thirdly,   there   is   no   finding   that   the   gift   deed   in   the
present   case   was   actuated   upon   any   extraneous
consideration. Hence, it constitutes a  bona fide  transfer which
are exempted from the rigors of Section 6 of the Ceiling Act of
1973.
49. The   appeal   stands   allowed   in   the   aforesaid   terms.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
…………………………………………J
(N.V. RAMANA)
…………………………………………J
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
…………………………………………J
(SURYA KANT)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 08, 2020.
25