The expenses for marriage and maintenance of an unmarried major daughter are not relevant in determining the extent of the total holdings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.

JUDGMENT - Mohta V. J.-Heart of the question is whether in determining the extent of the total holdings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), the consideration of the requirement of making provision for the expenses for marriage and /or maintenance of unmarried major daughter in a general partition in a Hindu family has any place.

2. Petitioner No. 1 Bhagwandas Heda's Joint family consists of his wife Smt. Kamlabai (petitioner No. 2), three minor sons: Amritlal (peti- tioner No 3), Tarachand (petitioner No. 4) and Hemantkumar, two minor unmarried daughters: Premalata and Hemalata and a major unmarried daughter Kiran. Bhagwandas as the head of the family filed a return of to a holdings as required under section 12 of the Act. On making enquiry, the SLDT found 34.24 acres as surplus. In appeal the MRT maintained this order. Being aggrieved, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed.

3. Two points were originally raised in this petition. One relates to the extent of Pot-kharab land. According to the petitioner, 9.30 acres (and not merely 4.19 acres as held by the Authorities) is the extent of Pot-kharab land. The areas covered by drainage work, embankment, etc. which are maintained for the purposes of agriculture were not excluded by the Author- ities as they fall within the definition of the term “land” under section 2(16) of the Act. It seems to me that the finding recorded is correct. My atten- tion was invited to the statement of patwari examined on behalf of the State to the effect that one Nala exists in field survey No. 2 /1 of mouza Esapur. It is contended that at least the area of that Nala should have been excluded. There is no material on record about the nature and extent of the Nala. Even in the writ petition these details are missing. Hence this contention also cannot be accepted. The other point relates to the difference of two acres out of this very field initially measuring 15.21 acres. Area of 10 acres out of this was sold in the year 1971 to Abdul Rahim (Respondent No. 3). The Authorities did not accept the case that though in the sale-deed only 10 acres is mentioned, the purchaser wrongly took possession of 12 acres. No valid reason is demonstrated before me to take a different view of the matter. Crop statement for the year 1970–71 (the correctness of which was not disputed in appeal) and the statement made by petitioner No. 1 indicates his physical possession over 5.21 acres. It is true that crop-statements for subsequent years and the oral testimony of the purchaser does indicate his physical possession over 12 acres. But that evidence has not been accepted. The finding is thus based on appreciation of evidence.

4. This takes me to the points raised by way of amendment to the petition in February 1983. In the first place it is contended that Kiran - the major unmarried daughter who is not included in the concept of “family unit” under section 4 of the Act was entitled to share on partition of the ancestral and joint family property and therefore, land to the extent of her share should be excluded in terms of section 3 (3) (i) read with section 4 of the Act. This point has merely to be stated to be rejected. Hindu Law is clear that only certain females such as wife, widow,widow mother, grand- mother only are entitled to share on partition. Unmarried daughter- major or minor, married or unmarried does not belong to that category of females.

5. It is next contended that as the expenses of marriage and main- tenance of an unmarried daughter are liabilities on the family property and therefore, as Hindu Law enjoins for making provision to meet those expenses at the time of general partition of the family property and allotment of respective shares, keeping in view those liabilities, the Authorities under the Ceiling Act are under a mandatory duty to enter verdict on the extent of that liability without which the extent and valu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document