Back
2008(1) Supreme 722
Supreme Court of india
(From Gujarat High Court)
R.V. Raveendran & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Ramanlal Bhailal Patel & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State of Gujarat — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 4420 of 2004
Decided on : 05-02-2008
AIR 1979 SC 734; 1899 AC 99; 1949 (1) KB 142 – Relied upon.
(b)Words and Phrases – Person – The word ‘person’, in law refers not only to a natural person, but also any legal entity that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being – This general legal definition is, however, either modified or restricted or expanded in different statutes with reference to the object of the enactment or the context in which it is used – Definition of person in General Clauses Act, being an inclusive definition, would include the ordinary, popular and general meaning and those specifically included in the definition – In the Ceiling Act, on the other hand, in the absence of any exclusion, the word would have the same meaning assigned to the word in the General Clauses Act, and in addition, a ‘joint family’ as defined. (Paras 16 and 17)
1976 (4) SCC 100 – Relied upon.
(c)Words and Phrases – Co-Owner – When several persons acquire undivided shares in a property, either equal or unequal, they become co-owners of the property – Also, where an owner of a property transfers a share in the property to another, the transferee becomes a co-owner along with the original owner – The right of each owner should be co-ordinate with the other ‘owners’ – A co-owner of a property owns every part of the composite property along with others – The position will change only when partition takes place – Co-ownership is not by volition of parties nor do they have any common purpose. (Paras 19 and 21)
AIR 1976 SC 2335 – Relied upon.
(d)Words and Phrases – Association of Persons – Where there is a combination of individuals by volition of the parties, engaged together in some joint enterprise or venture, it is known as ‘association of persons/body of individuals’ – When the word ‘person’ occurs in a statute relating to agriculture or ceiling on land holding, the term ‘association of persons/body of individuals’ may refer to a combination of individuals who join together to acquire and own land as co-owners and carry on agricultural operations as a joint enterprise. (Para 20)
AIR 1960 SC 1172; AIR 1961 SC 1043; AIR 1970 SC 1707; (1997)4 SCC 677 – Relied upon.
(e)Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 – Section 6(2) – It cannot be said that merely because the sale deed is in the joint names of ten persons, they purchased the land as “an association of persons” or as “body of individuals” – More so when the said ten persons had entered into an agreement placing on record that the object of purchasing the lands jointly was only to facilitate negotiations and avoid duplicating the purchase procedures and not to cultivate them jointly and there being no evidence of joint cultivation – The share of each couple (husband and wife) in the land, plus any other land individually held by them will have to calculated to find out whether they held any land in excess of the ceiling limit.(Paras 23 and 24)
(f)Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 – Section 8 – In absence of any application made either under sub-section (2), or any declaration under sub-section (3), it has to be held that the partition effected on 30.12.1971 was deemed to have been made in order to defeat the object of the Amendment Act, 1972 – Therefore, the partition will have to be ignored while computing the surplus land. (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
1.The five appellants along with their respective spouses purchased 172 acres and 36 guntas of agricultural land in Madheli village under four sale deeds dated 14.11.1970 (128A, 26G), 29.4.1971 (26A, 37G), 23.6.1971 (10A, 14G) and 18.12.1971 (6A, 39G) for a total consideration of Rs.46,300/-. Before such purchase, the ten purchasers entered into an agreement dated 15.9.1969 proposing to purchase about 175 acres of land in their joint names and recording the conditions subject to which they proposed to purchase such land.
2.After the purchase of the lands, the ten purchasers entered into another agreement on 30.12.1971 recording that the total sale price of Rs.46,300/- was paid equally by all of them. The said agreement also recorded the division of 172A, 36G of land purchased by them into ten portions among them. Under the said agreement, they also agreed to get their names registered in the Land Revenue Records as per the division.
3.Subsequently, on their applications, Mutation Entry No.1371 dated 25.2.1976 was made showing each co-owner as the separate owner of the lands respectively allotted to him/her, vide Hak Patrak (Village Form No.6), issued by the Land Revenue authorities.
4.The Mamlatdar issued a notice dated 5.11.1976 under section 20 of the Ceiling Act to the co-owners seeking particulars of the lands held by them, to determine whether they held any surplus land.
5.After considering their statements, he passed an order dated 30.4.1983. He made a declaration under section 21 of the Ceiling Act that the surplus holding was 1 acre, 31 guntas and that such surplus land shall vest in the Government.
6.The Deputy Collector, Dabhoi, in exercise of suo motu power of revision under section 37 of the Ceiling Act, determined the surplus land as 145 A, 31G and directed the Mamlatdar to obtain selection of the land to be surrendered.
7.The said order was challenged by the appellants before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Deputy Collector.
8.The appellants challenged the order of the Tribunal before the Gujarat High Court which petition was allowed. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal in part
Findings of the Court:
The share of each couple (husband and wife) in the land, plus any other land individually held by them will have to calculated to find out whether they held any land in excess of the ceiling limit.
Result : Appeal allowed.
judgment
R.V. Raveendran, J. —
This appeal by special leave, against the judgment dated 4.3.2003 passed by the Gujarat High Court in L.P.A. No.123 of 2000, relates to the interpretation of the word ‘person’ in the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (‘Ceiling Act’ for short).
The Facts :
2.The five appellants along with their respective spouses purchased 172 acres and 36 guntas of agricultural land in Madheli village under four sale deeds dated 14.11.1970 (128A, 26G), 29.4.1971 (26A, 37G), 23.6.1971 (10A, 14G) and 18.12.1971 (6A, 39G) for a total consideration of Rs.46,300/-. Before such purchase, the ten purchasers entered into an agreement dated 15.9.1969 proposing to purchase about 175 acres of land in their joint names and recording the conditions subject to which they proposed to purchase such land. The reason stated in the agreement for the joint purchase, was to avoid each of them having to individually negotiate and enter into separate agreements with several owners of the lands. They agreed that one of them would be authorized to hold negotiations and go through the procedural requirements for the purchase; and that after purchasing the land in their names, they would divide the lands equally as early as possible. They also agreed that there will be no collective or joint cultivation of the lands proposed to be purchased by them.
3.After the purchase of the lands, the ten purchasers entered into another agreement on 30.12.1971 recording that the total sale price of Rs.46,300/- was paid equally by all of them. The said agreement also recorded the division of 172A, 36G of land purchased by them into ten portions among them. Under the said agreement, they also agreed to get their names registered in the Land Revenue Records as per the division. Subsequently, on their applications, Mutation Entry No.1371 dated 25.2.1976 (duly verified and approved on 19.4.1976) was made showing each co-owner as the separate owner of the lands respectively allotted to him/her, vide Hak Patrak (Village Form No.6), issued by the Land Revenue authorities.
The Proceedings :
4.The Mamlatdar issued a notice dated 5.11.1976 under section 20 of the Ceiling Act to the co-owners seeking particulars of the lands held by them, to determine whether they held any surplus land. After considering their statements, he passed an order dated 30.4.1983. He held that the total land held by them was 182 A. 23 Guntas; that when the lands were converted into ‘C’ Class category, the extent was 181A, 31G; that each couple (husband and wife) were together entitled to one unit (36 acres of ‘C’ category land); and that therefore the five couples (the five appellants with their spouses) were entitled to hold five units, that is, 180 acres. Consequently, he made a declaration under section 21 of the Ceiling Act, that the surplus holding was 1 acre, 31 guntas and that such surplus land (in Sy. No.643/43 in Madheli) shall vest in the Government.
5.The Deputy Collector, Dabhoi, in exercise of suo motu power of revision under section 37 of the Ceiling Act, issued a show cause notice dated 3.5.1984 to the appellants, being of the view that the determination of surplus land by the Mamlatdar was contrary to the provisions of the Ceiling Act. After hearing, he passed an order dated 23.8.1984 holding that a group of persons or association of persons purchasing agricultural land together, had to be treated as ‘a person’ under the Act and therefore they could jointly hold only one unit (36 Acres) in view of the provision of section 6(1) of the Ceiling Act. As a consequence, he determined the surplus land as 145 A, 31G and directed the Mamlatdar to obtain selection of the land to be surrendered. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, by invoking its revisional jurisdiction. The Tribunal, by its judgment dated 29.12.1987, upheld the decision of the Deputy Collector, by applying the definition of ‘person’ in the Bombay General Clauses A
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
