(1.) The plaintiff/appellant has come up in appeal, aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the lower appellate Court, dismissing his suit for declaration of title, in reversal of the decree of the trial court which had decreed the suit.

(2.) Vide order dated 25-8-1982, this appeal was admitted for hearing parties on the following substantial question of law :

"Whether, the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to go into the question of the title of the present appellant in face of the compromise decree Ex.P-4 between the respondent No. 3 (the holder before the Competent Authority) and the present appellant (the objector before the Competent Authority) even though it is a compromise decree and State was not a party to the case "

(3.) The undisputed facts are that the defendant/respondent No. 3 was the holder of an agricultural holding. Proceedings under the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act, for short) were initiated against him. On 10-1-1973, the plaintiff herein filed a civil suit against the defendant/respondent No. 3 registered as C.O.S. No. 7-A/73 seeking a declaration of title and correction of entries in revenue papers in respect of some of the survey numbers forming part of the holding recorded in Bhumiswami rights in the name of the respondent No. 3. As the certified copy of the judgement, Ex. P/4, shows the defendant did not offer any contest to the claim and rather filed a written statement admitting all the averments made in the plaint. On 31-1-1973, the Civil suit was decreed granting a declaration in favour of the plaintiff that he was the Bhumiswami in possession of 33 Bighas 17 Biswas of the land, also entitled to have his name recorded in the revenue papers in place of the defendant/respondent No. 3. This decree was set up before the Ceiling Authority in support of the plea that the land covered by the decree was not to be included in the land held by the respondent No. 3. The Ceiling Authority, after holding an inquiry, formed an opinion that the decree was secured with the idea of defeating the provisions of the Ceiling Act and was not liable to be recognised by the Ceiling Authority. The land held by the defendant/respondent No. 3 was directed to be declared surplus ignoring the decree of the Civil Court.

(4.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Ceiling Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in by-passing the Civil Courts decree while adjudicating upon the entitlement of the defendant/respondent No. 3 to hold the land.

(5.) It will be useful to extract, reproduce and notice the following provisions of the Ceiling Act :-

"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 1/01/1971 but before the appointed day, 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 or the holding held by the holder has been transferred in execution of a decree of any Court, the competent authority may, after notice to the holder and other persons affected by such transfer or partition and after such enquiry as it thinks fit to make, declare the transfer or partition to be void if it finds that the transfer or the partition, as the case may be, was made in anticipation of or to defeat the provisions of this Act. xx xx xx xx xx (4) In regard to every transfer to which this Section applies, the burden of proving that the transfer was not benami or was not made in any other manner to defeat the provisions of this Act shall be on the transferor."

"5. Restrictions on transfer or sub-divisions of land and consequences of transfer or sub-division made in contravention thereof. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no land shall be - (a) transferred whether by way of sale (including sale in execution of a decree of a Civil Court or of an award or order of any other lawful authority) or by way of gift, exchange, lease or otherwise; or (b) sub-divided (including sub-division by a decree or order of a civil Court or any other lawful authority) whether by partition or otherwise; until a final order under S. 11 is passed except with the permission in writing of the Collector. xx xx xx xx xx "(5) In regard to every transfer to which this Section applies the burden of proving that the transfer was not benami or was not made in any other manner to defeat the provisions of this Act shall be on the transferor."

5A. A few relevant dates of significance may be noted at the very outset. The Bill was published on 19-9-1959 in the Government Gazette. The Act was enforced on 15-11-1961. The appointed day, as defined in S. 2(b), by reference to which the entitlement of a holder to hold the land is to be adjudged under the Act was notified as 15/11/1963. Later on, in view of amendments having been effected in the Act, the appointed day has been changed to 7/03/1974.

(6.) Section 4 of the Ceiling Act now, operates between the 1/01/1971 and I the appointed day i.e. 7/03/1974. The net result is : the transactions between 1-1-1971 and 7-3-1974 are liable to be avoided on a finding being recorded by the Ceiling Authority that it was made in anticipation or to defeat the provisions of the Act. The transactions thereafter are simply liable to be ignored for the purposes of the Act.

(7.) In the case at hand the judgement and decree by Civil Court were passed on 31-1-1973 i.e. in a period covered by S. 4 of the Act. The suit itself was instituted within that period.

(8.) The objective behind enactment of the Ceiling Act and the relevant principle, for construing the provisions in the Act was well laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Board of Revenue, Gwalior, AIR 1983 Madh Pra 111 as under (at p. 118 of AIR) :

"In construing a provision in the Ceiling Act the broad objective of the Act has to be kept in view. The Ceiling Act is a social welfare legislation designed to implement the great objective of securing social justice enshrined in the Preamble and the Directive Principles of the Constitution. The object of the Ceiling Act is to make available surplus land to the Government for distribution to the needy. The rules of construction applicable to expropriatary legislation are not applicable here and language permitting the construction which best secures the object of the Ceiling Act must be preferred against others which seek to defeat agrarian justice."

(9.) The term transfer is not defined in the Act. Both Ss. 4 and 5 give an extended meaning to the term transfer by illustrating sale, gift, exchange followed by or otherwise so as to give an indication of legislative intent that transfer in any form whatsoever and howsoever styled, if it has the result of effecting the holding held by the holder, it was covered. Even the transfers covered by or made pursuant to decree of a Civil Court are not saved. Keeping in view the legislative intent and the objective behind enactment it is clear that such decrees which would have the effect of extinguishing the title of the holder and vesting the same in some one else though not falling within the ordinary meaning of the phrase transfer of property would be transfers within the meaning of the term as used in Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act.

(10.) In taking the abovesaid view I am fortified by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Pandey Orson v. Ram Chander Sahu, AIR 1992 SC 195 [LQ/SC/1991/316] . The term transfer occurring in S. 71 A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 came up for consideration of their Lordships. The term was not defined in the Act. The provision was the beneficial piece of legislation intended to protect the weaker Sections of citizens who could not protect their land otherwise. Their Lordships chose to adopt a broad and liberal construction so as to give full effect to the legislative purpose and held :

"In S. 71 A in the absence of a definition of transfer and considering the situation in which exercise of jurisdiction is contemplated, it would not be proper to confine the meaning of transfer to transfer under the Transfer of Property Act or a situation where transfer has a statutory definition. What exactly is contemplated by transfer in S. 71 A is where possession has passed from one to another and as a physical fact the member of the Scheduled Tribe who is entitled to hold possession has lost it and a non-member has come into possession would be covered by transfer and a situation of that type would be amenable to exercise of jurisdiction within the ambit of S. 71A."

(Emphasis supplied) Their Lordships referred to the definition of transfer of property as occurring in S. 5 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(11.) In Sanjay Dinker Asarkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 414 [LQ/SC/1985/354] , a case under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, their Lordships of the Supreme Court upheld the order of the Ceiling Authority refusing to recognise a Civil Courts decree which was secured without any contest in the suit found to be obviously collusive.

(12.) Before the Ceiling Authority, also before the Court below, the plaintiff/appellant failed to establish that the transfer of title from defendant/respondent No. 3 to the plaintiff/appellant was not motivated to defeat the provisions of the Act.

(13.) For the foregoing reasons, no fault can be found with the judgement and decree of the lower appellate court. The appeal is held to be without any merit and liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. The judgement and decree of the lower appellate court are confirmed. No order as to the costs in this appeal. Counsel fee as per schedule, if pre-certified. Appeal dismissed.