IMPORTANT POINT
Even if each adult son is entitled to separate unit under Ceiling Act, aggregate land of the family and that of the separate units (of adult sons) shall be put together and total permissible area shall not exceed twice the permissible area for the family.

Headnote:(a) Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – Section 4(1), (4) and (6) – Family, unit, permissible area – ‘Family’ limited in terms of number of minor children – Thus family including minor children constitutes one unit – Adult son(s) would be treated as separate unit(s) – Section 4(6), however, providing that aggregate land of the family and that of the separate units shall be put together and total permissible area shall not exceed twice the permissible area for the family. (Para 14)
       ILR 1976 HP 453 – Distinguished
       (b) Doctrine – Stare decisis – Principle of non-interference with such decision which stood for a long period to maintain certainty in the judicial decision – Applicable where statute is ambiguous and capable of more than one interpretation – Instantly, provision of section 4, Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 being unambiguous principle of stare decisis cannot be pressed into service. (Para 20, 22)
       AIR 1993 SC 477; (1970) 2 SCC 360 – Relied upon
       (1973) 2 SCC 35 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       Dev Raj, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein, was holding land measuring 2400 kanals 9 marlas in village Kalroohi and Mubarikpur as owner. He was issued notice in form C-V in which area measuring 1767 Kanals 9 Marlas was proposed to be declared as surplus under the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
       Instead of filing objection, the landowner filed a writ petition in which High Court directed that the determination of surplus area be made by the Collector.
       Finally, the Collector Land Ceiling, Una passed order holding that Dev Raj and that of his family with Ram Paul being adult son on the appointed day i.e.24.1.1971, the landowner is entitled for two units of land as permissible area.
       Thereafter, successor-in-interest of Dev Raj filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.
       The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities directing the Collector Land Ceiling, Una to determine the permissible area of original writ petitioners nos.1 to 5 individually in the light of the observations made in the impugned judgment.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment is contrary to law.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

M.Y. Eqbal, J.:

This appeal by special leave is directed against judgment dated 7.5.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondents was allowed and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities were quashed, holding that every landowner of the family of one Dev Raj was entitled for a separate unit.

2. The facts in nutshell are that Dev Raj, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein, was holding land measuring 2400 kanals 9 marlas in village Kalroohi and Mubarikpur as owner. He was issued notice in form C-V in which area measuring 1767 Kanals 9 Marlas was proposed to be declared as surplus under the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Instead of filing objection, the landowner filed a writ petition in which High Court directed that the determination of surplus area be made by the Collector. On 22.7.1976, the Collector, Una District passed an order holding that the land owned by wife of late Dev Raj namely, Smt. Kala Devi, and Yash Pal, Dharam Pal, Ram Pal sons of Dev Raj be excluded from the holding of landowner Dev Raj and all the members of the family holding land continue to enjoy rights therein to the extent of the determined permissible area. Thereafter, while deciding reference in revision, the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh remanded the case to the Collector for decision afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the respondents. After remand, the Collector Land Ceiling, Una passed order holding that Dev Raj and that of his family with Ram Paul being adult son on the appointed day i.e.24.1.1971, the landowner is entitled for two units of land as permissible area.

3. In appeal against the aforesaid order, the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, on 30.3.1986, held that the provisions of Section 4(6) are very explicit under which the total land held by the family members has to be considered. In revision, the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Divisional Commissioner. Thereafter, successor-in-interest of Dev Raj filed writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenging the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.

4. Before the High Court, respondents pleaded that the writ petitioners in their own right are individual landowners before the appointed day under the Act. Their individual land holdings cannot be clubbed together for determining permissible area under Section 4 of the Act and such petitioners are entitled to one unit individually under the Act. The individual holding of all petitioners except writ petitioner no.1 is far below permissible area. Therefore, while determining their permissible area, the surplus area out of the land holding of writ petitioner no.1 only is to be excluded, the others do not have any surplus area as their individual holding is within the permissible limits of the Act. It was argued before the High Court that the order dated 22.7.1976 passed by the District Collector but other orders passed subsequent to that order are not in accordance with the Act. It has been urged that in sub-section (4) of Section 4 adult son of a landowner is entitled to a separate unit up to the extent permissible to a ‘family’ under sub-section (1) and (2) but once adult son himself is a landowner in his own right, then he is entitled to hold permissible area under the Act in his individual capacity and he cannot be confined to have separate unit up to the extent permissible to a family.

5. Per contra, State of Himachal Pradesh heavily relied upon sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act and contended that writ petitioners nos.2 to 5 are members of the family of writ petitioner no.1, and therefore, their holding individually together with the land held by all of them shall be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the permissible area.

6. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 1072

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAM.Y. Eqbal, C. Nagappan, JJ.State of Himachal Pradesh and others – AppellantsVersusAshwani Kumar and others – RespondentsCIVIL APPEAL NO. 6015 OF 2009Decided On : 26-11-2015

IMPORTANT POINTEven if each adult son is entitled to separate unit under Ceiling Act, aggregate land of the family and that of the separate units (of adult sons) shall be put together and total permissible area shall not exceed twice the permissible area for the family.

Cases Referred (3)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. Eqbal, C. Nagappan, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others – Appellants
Versus
Ashwani Kumar and others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6015 OF 2009
Decided On : 26-11-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Even if each adult son is entitled to separate unit under Ceiling Act, aggregate land of the family and that of the separate units (of adult sons) shall be put together and total permissible area shall not exceed twice the permissible area for the family.