Back
1969 Supreme(Bom) 83
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
K.K. Desai and G.N.Vaidya, JJ.
Appellants: Madanlal Shankar Maliwal and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Special Civil Appln. No. 1435 of 1967 Decided On: 30.09.1969
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.V. Sawant, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: M.B. Kadam, Asst. Govt. Pleader
Separate holdings of family members cannot be clubbed together for determining surplus lands under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961. The Commissioner erred in relying solely on the presumption of Hindu Law and failing to consider documentary evidence of the wife's separate ownership and possession.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'Ceiling on Agricultural Land Holdings', 'SUBJECT': "Inclusion of Wife's Separate Lands in Husband's Holding for Surplus Land Determination", 'ACT SECTION LIST': 'Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961 - Sections 2(11), 2(14), 2(20), 2(22), 4(1), 6'}
Fact of the Case:
The Commissioner, in a suo motu enquiry under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961, held that the wife's (second petitioner) six lands, totaling 83 acres 4 gunthas, should be added to the husband's (first petitioner) 112 acres 19 gunthas for determining surplus lands. The Commissioner relied on the presumption of Hindu Law that the wife is joint with her husband unless proven otherwise.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Commissioner erred in relying solely on the presumption of Hindu Law and failed to consider documentary evidence showing the wife's separate ownership and possession of the lands. The court found that the wife's separate lands could not be included in the husband's holding for determining surplus lands under Section 4(1) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the wife's separate lands can be included in the husband's holding for determining surplus lands under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Commissioner erred in relying solely on the presumption of Hindu Law and failing to consider documentary evidence of the wife's separate ownership and possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 4(1) of the Act strictly, considering its purpose of compulsory deprivation of surplus agricultural lands. It found that the phrase "person" in Section 4(1) does not include all family members, whether joint or separate, and that separate holdings of family members cannot be clubbed together for determining surplus lands. 2. The court held that the Commissioner erred in relying solely on the presumption of Hindu Law and failing to consider documentary evidence showing the wife's separate ownership and possession of the lands. The court emphasized the need to examine all relevant evidence to determine whether the wife had acquired possession and separate ownership of the lands.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter for a fresh enquiry, directing the Commissioner to consider all relevant evidence and decide the questions in accordance with the law, including the court's interpretation of Section 4(1) of the Act.
1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the correctness of the Commissioners order and decision dated May 30, 1967 whereby in the suo motu enquiry held by the Commissioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961, the Commissioner held that six lands of the second petitioner Godavaribai, (being the wife of the first petitioner), consisting of the aggregate area of 83 acres 4 gunthas, were liable to be added to the 112 acres and 19 gunthas of the land-holding of the first petitioner for ascertaining the surplus lands held by the first petitioner in excess of the ceiling area fixed under the above Act.
2. On the return being filed by the first petitioner originally the Collector, Parbhani by his decision and order dated November 80, 1964 held that the first petitioner was the owner of lands of the aggregate area of 110 acres 32 gunthas. Ona hundred find eight acres was the ceiling fixed for the area. He, therefore, held that the first petitioner held 2 acres and 32 gunthas of land as surplus land and directed notice under Section 16 of the Act to issue in respect of that surplus holding. The Commissioner in the suo motu enquiry held by him held that the first petitioner s lands aggregated to 110 acres and 19 gunthas. His wife, the second petitioner, owned six other lands of the aggregate area of 83 acres and 4 gunthas. In connection with that holding of the second petitioner, the argument before the Commissioner on behalf of the second petitioner was that these lands had been acquired by the second petitioner under registered deeds of gift executed after permission was granted in that connection under Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, As these lands were of the separate ownership of and were held separately in exclusive possession by the second petitioner, these lands were not liable to be included under the above Act in the aggregate land-holding of the first petitioner for ascertainment of the surplus lands held by the first petitioner. The Commissioner rejected that contention by observing that the important point for consideration was as to whether Godavaribai (second petitioner) was joint or separate from land-holder (first petitioner) and mere omission of her name in the return made by the first petitioner did not establish that she was separate from the first petitioner. He stated:
"No substantial evidence has been produced to the effect that she is separate in estate from her husband. Under the Hindu Law wife is presumed to be joint in all respects with her husband, unless contrary is proved. As such the land held by her will have to be included while counting the holding of the land-holder" (first petitioner.)
For the above reason, he rejected the contentions made on behalf of the second petitioner and made the findings as already recited above.
2A. On behalf of the petitioners the main contention of law that is made is that on a true construction of the relevant provisions of the Act, lands held by members of a family separately from other members of the family cannot be considered as a single hold-ing for ascertainment of surplus lands ia excess of ceiling area held by the family, The submission was that even though having regard to the definitions contained in Section 2 of the Act, the second petitioner, as wife, must be held to be member of the family consisting of herself and her husband, (the first petitioner), her separate holding cannot be considered as holding of the family or the same person under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Her holding must be considered independently and separately in ascertainment of surplus lands neld in excess of ceiling area by the first petitioner, her husband.
3. The first contention on behalf of the respondents was that a "person" was defined in Section 2 (22) of the Act to include a family and the language of Section 4 (1)
