SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Guj) 152

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :S.A.SHAH
CHUDASAMA SHAMBHAJI KALUBHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 1000 of 1978
Decided On : 07/10/1984

Advocates Appeared: S.R.DIVETIA, SHARAD D.SHAH

Headnote:

Gujarat Bands Ceiling Act 1960 – Sections 2, 6 – Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling (Amendment) Act. 1972 – Excess Land – Benefit of enlargement of the ceiling area – Contention of petitioner is that in his family besides himself he has his wife one minor son and five minor daughters i. e. in all eight persons and therefore under the provisions of section 6 (3-B) of the Ceiling Act he was entitled for the extra land of 3/5th of the ceiling i. e 1/5th for each of the members of his family in excess of five – Mamlatdar rejected this contention of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 6 (3-B) of the Ceiling Act without giving any reasons – Held, Authorities including the Tribunal in each of the cases the subject-matter of which are the aforesaid petitions are liable to be quashed and set aside and the matters are required to be sent back to the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal with a direction to compute the ceiling area again on the basis of the observations and interpretation made by me above. – Benefit of enlargement of the ceiling area will closure to only that family where the total number of members is more than five and amongst them are members belonging to the categories mentioned therein – However there is nothing in the sub-section wherefrom it can be inferred that the wife widowed mother and unmarried daughters were intended to be excluded from the family that is group or unit constituting the family – Court is therefore of the opinion that all the authorities including the Tribunal were wrong in coming to the conclusion that the aforesaid female members of the family had to be excluded for the purpose of determining the size of the family" – In courts opinion that decision of the learned single Judge of this Court clearly supports the view which court have taken – Petitions Allowed

S. A. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) THE Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the respective petitions have submitted that in this group of petitions the main and common question that arises is with respect to interpretation of section 6 (3-B) of the Gujarat Bands Ceiling Act 1960 (Gujarat Act No. XXVII of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act ) and therefore they may be disposed of by a common judgment without entering into facts of each petition because if they succeed in their interpretation it will be necessary to remand the matters to the authority below for deciding the ceiling area in each individual case. I have therefore heard all these petitions together and they are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of appreciating the contentions of the parties regarding the interpretation of section 6 (3-B) of the Act I would refer to the facts of Special Civil Application No. 1000 of 1978. The petitioner of the said petition was the owner of lands admeasuring 57 acres 9 gunthas in village Pipli Taluka Dhandhuka District Ahmedabad. He was also the owner of lands admeasuring 12 acres 27 gunthas in village Barhanpur Taluka Dhandhuka Dist. Ahmedabad. Minor son of the petitioner was owner of 8 acres of land in village Pipli.

( 3 ) THE Ceiling Act came into force in the State of Gujarat on 1-9-1961. and that will be the appointed day within the meaning of section 2 (2) (iv) of the Ceiling Act. The Ceiling Act was amended by The Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling (Amendment) Act. 1972 (Gujarat Act No. 2 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Amendment Act ). The Ceiling Amendment Act was brought into force by a Notification published in the Official Gazette on 1 By this Ceiling Amendment Act substantial changes have been made in the original Ceiling Act and it has been applied to all pending proceedings by section 31 thereof. I shall discuss the scheme of the Ceiling Amendment Act at an appropriate stage.

( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 1000 of 1978 being pending before the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal Dhandhuka order therein was passed on 23-3-1977 (Annexure A) by the Mamlatdar holding that the petitioner was holding 77 acres 36 gunthas of lands in village Pipli including the land of his son at Pipli and since the petitioner was entitled to hold and possess only 54 acres of lands the remaining 23 acres 36 gunthas of lands were found to be surplus as shown in the said order The Mamlatdar has added 8 acres of land of the petitioners son in order to decide the total holdings of the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE contention of the said petitioner is that in his family besides himself he has his wife one minor son and five minor daughters i. e. in all eight persons and therefore under the provisions of section 6 (3-B) of the Ceiling Act he was entitled for the extra land of 3/5th of the ceiling i. e 1/5th for each of the members of his family in excess of five. The Mamlatdar rejected this contention of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 6 (3-B) of the Ceiling Act without giving any reasons. ]

( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the said decision of the Mamlatdar the petitioner filed an appeal being Ceiling Appeal No. 75 of 1977 before the Deputy Collector Dholka. who by his order dated 18-5-1977 (Annexure B) was pleased to reject the claim of the petitioner for excess Eland on the ground that the petitioner has not proved that in the family unit there were qualified members exceeding five and therefore he was not entitled to the benefit of enlargement of ceiling area.

( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Collector the petitioner filed a revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). Before the Tribunal the petitioner raised a contention to at his family consisted of 8 members and therefore he was entitled to retain 3/5th of the



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top