Judgment :

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Writ Petition, filed by the appellants herein, registered as Writ Petition No. 5720 of 2001.

2. In the Writ Petition filed by the appellants before the Bombay High Court, they challenged the legality of the notification issued by the respondent-State herein under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. The appellants in the said Writ Petition prayed for quashing and setting aside the commencement of the Land Acquisition proceedings qua the appellants. Appellant No. 1 sought the said relief on the ground that a total holding of the appellant family being land covering 12.6 hectares, and each of the co-sharer of the family being entitled to hold land measuring about 2.53 hectares of land, no land could be acquired under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 [for short "Act of 1986"]. Consequently, it was argued that the entire exercise of proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act against the appellant is illegal and without jurisdiction.

4. According to the appellants, each member of the family who has attained the age of majority is entitled to hold independent land. Therefore, it is their submission that, akin to the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands [Ceiling on Holdings] Act, 1961 [for short "Act of 1961], each one of them would be entitled to retain his share in the joint family property which would be calculated as one unit each and if after such calculation, there is any excess land, such land could only be acquired in terms of the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 read with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.

5. The aforesaid contention of the appellants were refuted by the respondent-State contending inter alia that the expression "holding" is defined under Section 2(8) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, which indicates the total land held by a person as an occupant or tenant or as both. Since the expression "person" appearing in the said definition is not defined under the Act of 1986, therefore, according to the State, resort should be had to the definition of the expression of "persons" under Section 3(35) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. According to the said legislation, the expression "persons" could include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and relying on this definition, the stand of the State is that the expression joint Hindu family would also be included within the expression "person" and, therefore, the holding of the entire joint Hindu family itself would be calculated as one unit.

6. The Bombay High Court, where the Writ Petition was filed, accepted the contention of the State Government and held that the expression "person" occurring in the definition of "holding" under Section 2(8) of the Act of 1986 cannot be restricted solely to natural persons or juristic persons and that the expression "person" would include any company or association or body of individuals. In the opinion of the High Court, a Hindu Joint Family without doubt would be a body of individuals and would be covered under the expression "person" occurring in the definition of "holding" under Section 2(8) of the Act of 1986.

7. Having concluded so, the Bombay High Court also held that once Hindu Joint Family is held to be a person, the limit prescribed in Schedule-II has to be seen in the light of the holding of the person, i.e., holding of the Hindu Joint Family and not as holding of individual coparceners who constitute a Hindu Joint Family. The aforesaid findings recorded by the High Court are challenged in this appeal, wherein we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

8. The counsel for the appellants in support of his submission drew our attention t