U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Sections 154, 163, 166 and 167 — Transfer in excess of ceiling limit — Nature of invalidity.
(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Ss.154 and 163 (as existing prior to 03.06.1981) — Transfer in excess of ceiling limit — Effect — Transfer not void but only voidable.
Prior to omission of Section 163 by U.P. Act No.20 of 1982, a transfer made by a bhumidhar in contravention of Section 154 was not void. Such transfer merely exposed the transferee to ejectment at the instance of the Gaon Sabha and only to the extent of the contravention. The transfer remained operative until appropriate proceedings were taken under Section 163. (Paras 27 to 34)
Kripashanker v. Director of Consolidation, (1979) 4 SCC 199, followed.
(B) Ceiling restriction — Aggregate holdings.
Section 154 does not prohibit every transfer. The restriction applies only where the transferee, together with existing holdings of himself or his family, exceeds the prescribed ceiling. Mere execution of a sale deed does not automatically attract the statutory prohibition. (Paras 24 to 26)
(C) Retrospective operation of amended statute — Not permissible.
The amendments introduced by U.P. Act No.20 of 1982 enlarging Sections 166 and 167 and omitting Section 163 are substantive in nature. Such amendments cannot retrospectively invalidate transfers executed prior to the amendment or divest accrued rights in the absence of express or necessarily implied legislative intent. (Paras 35 to 42)
(D) Statutory interpretation — Substantive amendment.
An amendment which changes the legal consequences of an existing transaction and creates new liabilities or disabilities is presumed to operate prospectively unless the legislature clearly indicates otherwise. (Paras 36 to 42)
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 — Jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities.
(E) Consolidation proceedings — Jurisdiction — Registered sale deed — Void and voidable documents — Distinction.
Consolidation Authorities may disregard a document which is void ab initio. However, where the document is merely voidable and requires cancellation by a competent Civil Court, the Consolidation Authorities cannot ignore such document so long as it remains uncancelled. (Paras 46 to 49)
Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh, (1973) 2 SCC 535; Khursheed v. Shaqoor, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2929, followed.
(F) Void and voidable transactions — Difference.
A voidable transaction remains valid and operative until avoided by a competent court. Rights created thereunder continue to subsist unless the instrument is cancelled. (Paras 47 to 49)
Evidence Act, 1872 — Registered documents.
(G) Registered sale deed — Presumption of genuineness — Certified copy.
A registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of validity and due execution. A certified copy of such registered instrument also enjoys a statutory presumption of genuineness under Section 79 of the Evidence Act. The burden to dislodge such presumption lies heavily on the person challenging the document. (Paras 51 to 53)
(H) Sale deed — Attestation — Requirement.
Attestation is not an essential requirement for validity of a sale deed. Consequently, minor discrepancies relating to the identity or residence of an attesting witness cannot invalidate an otherwise genuine registered conveyance. (Paras 53 to 56)
(I) Appreciation of evidence — Witness examined after several decades.
Where an attesting witness was examined nearly 38 years after execution of the document, minor discrepancies regarding village particulars or personal details cannot constitute material contradictions sufficient to disbelieve the transaction. (Paras 54 to 56)
(J) Fraud, forgery or impersonation — Pleading absent.
Where there is no plea of forgery, fraud, impersonation, coercion, or misrepresentation, a registered sale deed cannot be discarded merely on account of insignificant discrepancies in proof. (Paras 57 and 58)
Ratio Decidendi
- A transfer made by a bhumidhar in contravention of Section 154, prior to the 1981 amendment, was merely voidable and not void.
- The amendments to Sections 166 and 167 introduced by U.P. Act No.20 of 1982 are substantive and prospective and cannot retrospectively invalidate earlier transfers.
- Consolidation Authorities may disregard only void documents. They cannot ignore a voidable document which has not been cancelled by a competent Civil Court.
- A registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of genuineness, and insignificant discrepancies concerning attesting witnesses do not destroy its evidentiary value.
Held
The sale deed dated 04.06.1957 could not have been treated as void either under Section 154 or under the amended provisions of Sections 166 and 167. The Consolidation Authorities and the High Court committed manifest error in disregarding the registered sale deed based upon inconsequential discrepancies regarding the attesting witness. The impugned orders were therefore set aside and the names of the appellants were directed to be recorded in the revenue records. (Paras 59 and 60)
Cases Referred
- Kripashanker v. Director of Consolidation
- Zile Singh v. State of Haryana
- Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar
- Thakoor Hurdeo Bux v. Thakoor Jowahir Singh
- State of Kerala v. Philomina
- Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh
- Ningawwa v. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar
- Khursheed v. Shaqoor
- Hemalatha v. Tukaram
Result
Civil Appeal Allowed.
The judgment of the High Court and the concurrent orders of the Consolidation Authorities were set aside. The appellants were held entitled to have their names recorded in the revenue records on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 04.06.1957. No order as to costs. (Paras 60 and 61)
