Back
2003 Supreme(Guj) 71
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.S.SINHA, J.M.Panchal
RAMANBHAI B.PATEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 1939 of 1988
Decided On : 02/15/2003
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Articles 226, 31a (1), 31-A - Ceiling Act, Sections 8, 20, 37, 6 , 2 (21) - General Clauses Act, 1904, Sub-section (35) of section 3 - Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 - Section 2 (9) - Evidence Act - Section 27 - Filing instant appeal under Clause of the Letters Patent the five appellants claim that the order and judgement dated passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application remanding the matter to the Revenue - Tribunal for deciding two questions, namely, whether the word as defined in Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act includes and whether in absence of an application under section of the Ceiling Act the appellants are entitled to different units as well as the decision dated rendered by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Civil Application rejecting the prayer made by the appellants to review the judgement delivered in Special Civil Application being illegal should be set aside - Appellants and their spouses for purchase and cultivation of agricultural lands - It was provided therein that the division/partition of the lands to be purchased should be effected as early as possible - The said agreement is produced at Annexure-D to the petition - Appellants were holding the following agricultural lands situated at village were purchased in the names of persons under different sale deeds dated which is produced at Annexure-E to the petition which is produced at Annexure-F to the petition which is produced at Annexure-G to the petition which is produced at Annexure-H to the petition - Above referred to lands of village were partitioned between the joint owners vide deed dated which is produced at Annexure-I to the petition initiated proceedings under section of the Ceiling Act - He held that the lands situated at village were used for non-agricultural purpose before coming into force of the Ceiling Act and were therefore entitled to be excluded from computation the lands situated at village were purchased by five appellants jointly and not by ten persons as claimed by the appellants the agreement dated the total holdings of the appellants for the purpose of the Ceiling the appellants are entitled to five units they are entitled to hold acres of land and therefore land admeasuring is liable to be declared as surplus under the Ceiling act - Held, Reasons for enacting the evils it was sought to end and the objects it was to sub - We find that the principle that singular shall include the plural must be applied to the word as defined in section of the Ceiling Act - When a provision is drafted in singular that does not mean a different intention has been expressed for not including plural GLR it has been held by this Court that the word in section of the Municipalities At includes - Again in Vs. State AIR and Vs. State AIR it has been held that Section of the Evidence Act does not exclude the interpretation as to plurality of information received from persons accused of any offence. After making resort to the provisions of General Clauses Act it has been held that the word person in singular includes plural - What is important is that in Wealth-tax Officer Vs. AIR SC the word individual under Wealth Tax Act is held to include group of persons - Applying the well settled principle of interpretation of statute namely singular shall include the plural to the provisions of the Ceiling Act we find that the word person as defined in section would include Persons who are not related to each other but who form an association or body for a purpose - On the basis of this reasoning also the decision of the Revenue Tribunal will have to be upheld - Tribunal did not commit any error in upholding the decision of the Deputy Collector by which the appellants who are co-owners have been held to be entitled to hold one unit - As we have held that the appellants who are co-owners are included in the definition of word person the partition of the lands situated in village by deed dated will have to be regarded as having been made in anticipation in order to defeat the object of the Ceiling Act as provided in section of the said Act and of no consequence - Appeal partly succeeds.
( 1 ) BY filing instant appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the five appellants claim that the order and judgement dated December 30, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application NO. 1939/88 remanding the matter to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal for deciding two questions, namely, whether the word "person" as defined in Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (the Ceiling Act for short) includes "association of persons", and whether in absence of an application under section 8 of the Ceiling Act, the appellants are entitled to different units, as well as the decision dated February 23, 2000 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Civil Application No. 208/2000 rejecting the prayer made by the appellants to review the judgement delivered in Special Civil Application No. 1939/88, being illegal should be set aside.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts may be noticed in brief. 2. 1 on September 15, 1969 an agreement was entered into between the appellants and their spouses for purchase and cultivation of agricultural lands. It was provided therein that the division/partition of the lands to be purchased should be effected as early as possible. The said agreement is produced at Annexure-D to the petition. The appellants were holding the following agricultural lands: The lands situated at village Madheli were purchased in the names of 10 persons under different sale deeds dated (1) September 14, 1970 which is produced at Annexure-E to the petition, (2) April 29, 1971 which is produced at Annexure-F to the petition, (3) June 23, 1971 which is produced at Annexure-G to the petition and (4) December 18, 1971 which is produced at Annexure-H to the petition. The above referred to lands of village Madheli were partitioned between the joint owners vide deed dated December 30, 1971 which is produced at Annexure-I to the petition. 2. 2 the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dabhoi, initiated proceedings under section 20 of the Ceiling Act. He held that (1) the lands situated at village Vasad were used for non-agricultural purpose before coming into force of the Ceiling Act and were therefore entitled to be excluded from computation, (2) the lands situated at village Madheli were purchased by five appellants jointly and not by ten persons as claimed by the appellants, (3) the agreement dated September 15, 1969 is genuine, (4) the total holdings of the appellants for the purpose of the Ceiling Act is 181 acres and 31 gunthas (5) the appellants are entitled to five units i. e. they are entitled to hold 180 acres of land and therefore land admeasuring 1 acre and 31 gunthas is liable to be declared as surplus under the Ceiling act. He, therefore, by his order dated April 30, 1983 held that the appellants were holding 1 acre and 31 gunthas of land as surplus land. 2. 3 the Deputy Collector, Dabhoi, exercised powers of review conferred on him by section 37 of the Ceiling Act. He held that all the appellants were entitled to hold only one unit and not five units as held by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dabhoi. He, therefore, by his order dated August 23, 1984, held that the appellants are holding lands admeasuring 145 acres and 31 gunthas as surplus land. 2. 4 feeling aggrieved, the appellants invoked revisional jurisdiction of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by filing Revision Application No. TEN B. A. 1243 of 1984. The Tribunal dismissed the revision application by judgement dated December 24, 1987. 2. 5 thereupon the appellants preferred Special Civil Application No. 1939 of 1988 before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge, by judgement dated December 30, 1999, has set aside the decision of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the question whether the word "person" includes "association of persons" and in absence of an application under section 8 of the Ceiling Act, the appellants are entitled to different units. 2. 6 the appellants were of the view that
