Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.K.Abichandani
THAKKAR SHANTILAL MOHANLAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
S.C.A.2359 of 1990
Decided On : 02/06/2004
Section 2(n) defines person so as to include an Undivided Hindu Family. Therefore, under the second proviso to Sec. 54 which lays down provided further that no such permission shall be granted, where land is sold to a person who is not an agriculturist for agricultural purpose if the annual income of such person from other sources exceeds Rs. 5,000/-, the word person will have the meaning as per the said definition. In other words, even an Undivided Hindu Family would be considered as a person and when an application is made by an HUF, then it being a person, the annual income of such HUF will have to be taken into account. However, when there is an application by an individual and not the HUF under Sec. 54, his annual income alone is required to be considered for deciding whether it exceeded Rs. 5,000/-. Merely because the definition of person includes HUF, it cannot be held that in the annual income of an individual, the income of his HUF, if any, should also be included. There is no such clubbing of income of an individual and his HUF contemplated by the second proviso to Sec. 54(1) of the Ordinance. Therefore, when an application is made by an individual in his own capacity, his annual income alone was required to be taken into account for deciding whether it exceeded Rs. 5,000/- under the second proviso to Sec. 54(1) and the income of the HUF cannot be added in his income.
[Para 6]
(b) Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement & Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1947 - Sec. 54 - Suo motu proceedings - Initiation of - No period of limitation prescribed for initiation of suo motu proceeding but requirement is to exercise such power within reasonable time - In the instant case Collector initiated suo motu proceedings after lapse of one year and four months from date of permission - Held, initiation of suo motu proceeding not within reasonable time.
There was no warrant for initiating such suo motu proceedings after the lapse of one year and four months from the date of the grant of the permission on the basis of which the petitioner purchased the land and had invested a considerable amount in sinking a well in it. The learned Counsel, therefore, rightly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim, reported in 1997 (6) SCC, 71, in which, in the context of the sale of land which took place in December, 1972 and a suo motu inquiry was started in September, 1973, it was held that the suo motu revisional powers were not exercised in reasonable time.
[Para 7]
( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the order of the Revenue Tribunal made on 31. 7. 1989 in Appeal Ten. A. A. No. 51/85 dismissing the petitioners appeal and upholding the order of the Collector made on 29th March, 1985 in suo motu revision application no. 1/84-85 by which the Collector set aside the order dated 31. 5. 1983 of the Assistant Collector, granting permission to the petitioner in respect of the sale transaction in question under the provisions of the second proviso to Section 54 (1) of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1947, and revoking the certificate dated 29. 4. 83 issued by the Assistant Collector showing that the petitioner was having annual income of less than Rs. 5,000. 00.
( 2 ) AS per the certificate dated 29. 4. 1983, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure:a to the petition, the Assistant Collector, Dhangadhra had certified under Rule 18 read with Section 54 of the said Ordinance that the income of the petitioner did not exceed Rs. 5,000. 00. It is evident from the certificate that pursuant to the application dated 30. 11. 1982 made by the petitioner for seeking such certificate, the Mamlatdar, Halwad, had forwarded that application with a recommendation to the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector on 26. 4. 1983 gave a personal hearing to the petitioner during which the petitioner produced his affidavit, stating that his income did not exceed Rs. 5,000. 00. He also gave a statement to the effect that he had experience of agricultural work and he would, on issuance of the certificate, acquire agricultural implements. In the certificate, a condition was imposed that such agricultural implements should be acquired by the petitioner within six months from the date of receipt of such certificate and that prior permission should be obtained before effecting any purchase of the agricultural land. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased agricultural land under the sale deed dated 15. 6. 1983 for which permission was obtained from the Assistant Collector, Dhangadhra on 31. 5. 1983. As per the order, a copy of which is at Annexure:b to the petition, that permission was given in the context of the certificate in which it was certified that the income of the petitioner did not exceed Rs. 5,000. 00.
( 3 ) IT appears that after a period of one year and four months from the date of the issuance of the certificate on the basis of which the petitioner already made purchase of the land in question on 15. 6. 1983, a show cause notice was issued in purported exercise of the revisional powers by the Collector, calling upon the petitioner as to why the certificate and the order should not be held to be illegal on the ground that the income of the joint family of the petitioner was more than Rs. 5,000. 00. The Collector in his revisional order observed that the petitioner did not adduce sufficient evidence in support of the fact that his income did not exceed Rs. 5,000. 00, in response to the show cause notice. It was noted that the petitioner was having a ration card for sugar. The Collector held that the income of the petitioner was more than Rs. 5,000. 00 and, therefore, the permission was illegally granted to the petitioner in respect of the purchase made by him in respect of the land in question under Section-54 of the Act. The order granting permission as well as certificate were, therefore, revoked by the Collector on 29. 5. 1985.
( 4 ) THE Tribunal, holding that action could be taken in reasonable time, rejected the contention of the petitioner that the exercise of suo motu revisional power was unwarranted in view of the delay in its exercise. The Tribunal referred to the observation of the Collector that there was no sufficient evidence to show that the annual income of the appellant no. 1 was less than Rs. 5,000. 00. In para-9 of the order of the Tribunal, it has been stated thus: "the Collector has also observed that he is in possession of the ration
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
