Section 22, literally read, leads only to one conclusion, that any transfer, bona fide executed or not, is liable to be declared void by the Authorised Officer “if he finds that the transfer defeats any of the provisions of this Act”. There is not the slightest doubt that severally and cumulatively the provisions of the Act seek to make available the maximum extent of land, in excess of the ceiling, to be vested in Government for fulfilment of its purposes. Chapter II contains a fasciculus of provisions in this behalf and if any transfer carves out of the surplus area some land, pro tanto, the provisions of the Act are defeated. Indeed, it is not seriously disputed that such will be the conclusion if we do not read into the provisions either the condition that it does not apply to bone fide transfers, as Shri Ramamurthi would have it, or does not apply to any transfers other than sham, nominal or bogus transfers, as the High Court would have it. A policy-oriented interpretation tallies with the literal construction in the present case. The mischief rule in Heydon case and the grammatical construction which is
