Raghunath Laxman Wani & Ors Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors [1971] INSC 180 (6 August 1971)
SHELAT, J.M.
SHELAT, J.M.
RAY, A.N.
CITATION: 1971 AIR 2137 1972 SCR (1) 48
ACT:
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on
Holdings Act) 1961-ss. 3, 4, 6-Ceiling area-Act does not contemplate refixation
on account of increase or decrease in the number of members of family after
appointed day-Additional 1/6th in excess of ceiling area for each member of
family in excess of five-Section 6, proviso.
HEADNOTE:
In proceedings held under s. 14 of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, the Deputy
Collector rejected the appellants' case of partition and determined the surplus
land to be surrendered under the Act. He also held that of the 14 members of
the family, three of them were born after January 26, 1962, that is, the
appointed day under the Act, that appellant M had purchased 11 acres of land
separately on March 11, 1960 and therefore they could not be treated as members
of the family under s.6 for the purpose of the additional 1/6th of the basic
ceiling area. On appeal, the Revenue Tribunal accepted the findings of the
Deputy Collector. But the Tribunal made a modification in the order of the
Deputy Collector in that it held that though the property was acquired in the
name of M there was nothing to show that the acquisition was from his separate
funds or was to be held by him separately and, hence he could not be excluded
from the family for the purpose of s. 6. The Tribunal consequently modified the
ceiling area.
HELD : (i) The Deputy Collector and the
Tribunal have, after an examination of the materials placed before them,
arrived at the concurrent finding that the appellants' case of severance of
status and partition of the family land was not acceptable. This Court will not
be justified in an appeal under Art. 136 in interfering with such a concurrent
finding of fact. [54G] (ii) The scheme of the Act is to determine the ceiling
of each person including a family with reference to the appointed day. The
ceiling area so fixed would not be liable to fluctuations with the subsequent
increase or decrease in number of the family members, for there is, apart from
the explicit language of ss. 3 and 4 no provision in the Act providing for the
redetermination of the ceiling area of a family on variations in the number of
its members.
The argument that variations in the number of
the members of a family required a redetermination of the ceiling area would
mean an almost perpetual fixation and re-fixation in the ceiling area by the
revenue authorities, a state of affairs that could not have been contemplated
by the lagislature. [57H;58B-D] State v. Dinkarrao Rarayanrao Deshmukh, (1969)
72 Bom, L.R237 and Murari Rao S. Gube Patil v. State, Spl. C.A. No. 767/68, dt.
49 18-4-1968 referred to; view contra in
Civil Application No 1578 of 1969 decided on 16-7-1969,(Bombay) held incorrect.
(iii) Under the proviso to s. 6 for the
purpose of increasing the holding of a family in excess of the ceiling area, if
a member there of holds any land separately he cannot be regarded as a member
of that family for such purpose. The proviso is clear, since there was no
evidence that M or the family had treated the lands purchased in the name of M
on March 11, 1960 as the separate property of M, the tribunal was right in
regarding M as a member of the family and consequently holding that the family
would be entitled to an additional 1/6th of the ceiling area so far as M was
concerned. [59E-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 5 of 1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated September 2, 1966 of the Maharastra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay in
Appeal No. ALC-A 12 of 1966.
V. M. Tarkundey, V. M. Limaye and S. S.
Shukla, for the appellant.
V. S. Desai, S. B. Wad and S. P. Nayar, for
the repondents Nos. 1 and 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shelat, J. This appeal by special leave, is against the judgment and order
passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, dated September 2, 1966, in proceedings
held by the Deputy Collector under S. 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands
(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect
of lands held by the appellants.
The following pedigree explains the
relationship between the appellants:
Tukaram (dead) -------------Narayan, d. about
1920=Laxmibai Madhav=Maltibai Alka (minor) Laxman, d. 5-61954=Warubai
Raghunath=Rukhminibai Ramesh Suresh ShailaMukand (minor) (minor)(minor) (minor)
50 It is not in dispute that, until at any rate 1956, appellant Raghunath and
the other members of the family formed a joint and undivided Hindu family of
which Raghunath, on the death of his father Laxman in June 1954, became the
karta and the manager. The family then held 523.03 acres of lands situate at
Ranjangaon, Sangwi, Karajgaon, Shindi and Odhre villages. In 1956, appellant
Raghunath gave a vardhi (intimation) to the talathi stating that he and the
other members of his family had entered into a partial partition whereunder
Laxmibai, the widow of Narayan, received 41.13 acres of land of Karajgaon,
Kashinath, named Madhav Narayan after his adoption, 74.20 acres of land in
Shindi village and Warubai, his mother, 64.03 acres of land of Shindi and Odhre
villages. The balance of 343.07 acres of the said lands still stood in his
name. But his case was that the members of the family had separated and ceased
to constitute a joint and undivided family, and therefore, held the said
balance in equal shares as tenants-in-common. The position thus was that on
August 4, 1959 343-07 acres of land comprising of 180-20 acres of Rajangaon and
162-27 acres of Sangwi villages remained in his name. It was said that out of
these 343 -07 acres of land, 75 -27 acres had come to his share thus leaving
267-20 acres of land held by them all as tenants-in-common.
On April, 1, 1960, Raghunath sent another
vardhi (intimation) to the talathi of Ranjangaon stating that the partition by
metes and bounds, which had remained partial in 1956, had been completed on
that day. He also intimated that under this partition 75 -27 acres of land of
Rajangaon village went to Rukhminibai and Ramesh, his wife and son
respectively, 53 -29 acres of Ranjangaon village to Madhav and his wife,
Maltibai and 8 .36 acres of Ranjangaon village to Warubai, his mother, i.e.,
the widow of Laxman.
According to the appellants, all the lands,
which were partitioned and allotted in 1956 to Laxmibai, Madhav and Warubai had
been sold away most of them before August 4, 1959 and the rest in 1960 and
1961. Likewise between October, 17, 1960 and May 30, 1962 Raghunath had sold
150-13 acres out of the remaining lands. The result of the alleged partition
and the sales was that Raghunath held only 54-22 acres of lands at Rajangaon
and 51 Sangwi and that therefore, there was no surplus land for him to declare,
the ceiling for this area under the Act being 96 acres for an individual or a
family consisting of five members.
In support of their case of partition in 1956
and 1960 and the sales of lands which had come to the shares through it of the
different members of the family, the appellants relied on their own affidavits,
the statements of the various transferees, the said vardhis by Raghunath,
certain market receipts showing sales of agricultural produce by the members of
the family, extracts from village forms 7, 7A and 12 showing the different
crops grown in the lands and the names of the different members of the family
set out therein as occupants, and lastly, a consent deed dated April 11, 1960
executed by Madhav, Laxmibai and Warubai which recited the said partial
partition in 1956, the fact of their being tenants-in-common in respect of the
rest of the lands and the authority given by them to Raghunath to sell the
lands for himself and on their behalf and on Such sales having been effected
each of them having become entitled to 1/4th share in the sale proceeds.
The Deputy Collector, however, rejected the
appellants case of partition, firstly in 1956 and then in 1960, and held that
the family at the material time held 343 -07 acres of lands. He also held that
out of the 14 members of the family as three of them had beenborn after January
26, 1962, that being the appointed day under the Act and as appellant Madhav
had purchased 11 -20 acres of land separately on March 11, 1960, they Could not
be treated as members of the family under sec. 6 for the purpose of additional
1/6th of the basic ceiling area. Thus on the basis that the family consisted of
10 members only he allowed 96 acres plus 5/6th thereof, in all 176 acres and
declared the remaining 167 -07 acres as surplus.
On an appeal under sec. 33 of the Act, the
Revenue Tribunal accepted the findings of the Deputy Collector rejecting the
appellants' case of partition and held that the said sales effected by the members
of the family were made to defeat the objects of the Act. The Tribunal,
however, made one modification in the order of the Deputy Collector, in that,
it held that though Survey No. 81 was acquired in the name of Madhav on March
11, 1960, 52 there was nothing to show that that acquisition was from his
separate funds or was to be held by him separately, and therefore, he could not
be excluded from the family for the purposes of sec. 6. In this view the
Tribunal held that the family held 343 07 acres plus II -20 acres purchased in
the name of Madhav, i.e., 354 -27 acres, that the family members being II in
number, each of them in excess of five members was entitled to an additional
1/6th of the ceiling area, and that consequently, the ceiling area for the family
would be 192 acres. The surplus area thus would be 162 -27 acres and not 167
-07 acres as declared by the Deputy Collector. The present appeal challenges
the correctness of these conclusions of the Tribunal.
The Act was brought into operation as from
January 26, 1962, which is the appointed day under sec. 2(4). Sec. 3 provides:
"In order to provide for the more
equitable distribution of agricultural land amongst the peasantry of the State
of Maharashtra on the commencement of this Act, there shall be imposed to the
extent, and in the manner hereinafter provided, a maximum limit (or ceiling) on
the holding of agricultural land throughout the State." Sec. 4(1) lays
down that subject to the provisions of the Act no person shall hold any excess
over the ceiling area, as determined "in the manner hereinafter
provided". Under sec. 4(2), all land held by a person (which expression
includes a family) in excess of the ceiling area, shall be deemed to be surplus
land. Sec. 5 provides for the ceiling area, in the several local areas and for
each class of land, fixed having regard to the soil classification, climate,
rainfall and other factors enumerated therein. Under sec. 6, if a family
consists of members exceeding five in number, such family is entitled to hold land
exceeding the ceiling area to the extent of one-sixth of the ceiling area for
each-member in excess of five, so however that the total holding is not to
exceed twice the ceiling area, and in such a case, in relation to the ceiling
of that family, such area shall be deemed to be in the ceiling area. The
proviso to sec. 6 runs as follows.
53 "Provided that for the purpose of
increasing the holding of a family in excess of the ceiling area as aforesaid,
if any member thereof holds any land separately he shall not be regarded as a
member of that family for such purpose." Sec. 8 provides that no person,
who, on or after the appointed day, holds land in excess of the ceiling area,
shall on or after that day transfer or partition any land until the land in excess
of the ceiling is determined. Sec. 9 prohibits any person at any time, on or
after the appointed day, from acquiring by transfer or partition any land if he
already has land in excess of the ceiling area or land which together with any
other land already held by him will exceed in the total the ceiling area. Sec.
10 provides that if a person after August 4, 1959 but before the appointed day,
transfers or partitions any land in anticipation of, or in order to avoid or
defeat the objects of this Act, or if any land is transferred or partitioned in
contravention of sec. 8, then, in calculating the ceiling area of such a person
the land so transferred or partitioned shall be taken into consideration and
the land exceeding the ceiling area so calculated shall be deemed to be in
excess of the ceiling area for that holding notwithstanding that the land
remaining with him is not in fact in excess of the ceiling area. If by reason
of such transfer or partition the holding of that person is less than the area
so calculated to be in excess of the ceiling area, then all his land shall be
deemed to be surplus land and out of the land so transferred or partitioned and
in possession of the transferee land to the extent of such deficiency shall be
deemed to be surplus. Sec. 12 then provides that if any person (i) has at any
time between August 4, 1959 and January 26, 1962 held, or (ii) on or after
January 26, 1962 acquires, holds or comes into possession any land in excess of
the ceiling area, or (iii) whose land is converted into any other class of land
as a result of the expiry of the period or the date set out in sec. 2(5), or
(iv) whose land is converted into any other class of land in the circumstances
described in sec. 11, e.g., as a result of irrigation from a source constructed
by Government, thereby causing his holding to exceed the ceiling area, then, he
shall furnish within the respective periods prescribed therein to 54 the
relevant Collector a report containing particulars of all lands held by him. In
such cases, the Collector has to hold an enquiry under sec. 18 in respect of
the matters set out in that section, namely, the area of land held by such a
person on August 4, 1959, whether any acquisition by him between August 4, 1959
and January 26, 1962 should be considered in calculating the ceiling area, the
total area held by him on January 26, 1962, whether any transfer or partition
is made by him contrary to sec. 8, whether any land has been acquired or
possessed on or after January 26, 1962 by transfer or partition, whether there
has been any acquisition on or after January 26, 1962 by testamentary
disposition, devolution on death or operation of law, the total area held by
him on the date of enquiry and the area he is entitled to hold etc. At the end
of such enquiry, the Collector has to make the declaration in terms of sec. 21.
The first question which emerges for
determination is whether there was severance of the joint family and a
partition in respect of some of the lands in 1956 and a completion of that partition
in 1960 as alleged by the appellants. It is true that in support, of their case
of partition partly in 1956 and then in 1960, the appellants relied on (1) the
two mutation vardhis by Raghunath to the talathis, (2) sales of lands which
came to the shares of and which were allotted to certain members of the family,
(3) market receipts showing sales by such members of the agricultural produce
of lands, and (4) the affidavits by the members of the family and their
transferees. It is also true that in the vardhi (intimation) to the talathi of
Rajangaon on April 1, 1960, appellant Raghunath recited the fact of the partial
partition having been made on May 1, 1956 and the said affidavits also
mentioned the fact of the severance of status and the fact of the members of
the family holding thereafter the family properties as tenantsin-common. Both
the Deputy Collector and the Tribunal, however, arrived at a concurrent finding
for reasons given by both of them after an examination of the materials placed
before them that the appellants' case of the severance of status and partition
of the family lands partially in 1956 and then in 1960 was not acceptable. The
question is whether we would be justified in an appeal under Art. 136 in
interfering with such a concurrent finding of fact.
55 As noted by both the authorities, no
partition deed was admittedly executed by the parties either in 1956 or in
1960. The only documentary proof adduced in support of the alleged partition
consisted of the vardhis, sales of lands, the market receipts for sales of
agricultural produce said to be the produce of the lands allotted to some of
the members of the family unaccompanied, however, with any proof that the sale
proceeds thereof were appropriated by or accounted to those members. The
vardhis merely intimated the tala this of a partition having been made and
asked for the consequential 'mutations. By themselves they were not regarded by
the authorities as conclusive proof of' the severance of status or a partition
by metes and bounds.
It is somewhat strange that though the family
was said to have been disrupted and its severance brought about and the members
thereof were said to hold the rest of the lands as tenants-in-common. (i) No
proof was adduced of the division of other properties, such as the houses which
numbered ten, (ii) the shares allotted in 1956 to Laxmibai, the widow of
Narayan, Kashinath alias Madhav and Warubai, the widow of Laxman, were so
unequal as to afford no principle or basis for such distribution. and (iii) even
in 1960 when the partition by metes and bounds was said to have been completed,
the inequality in shares was not sought to be removed, nor was any case of the
division of the other family properties set up. It is true that a consent
document was produced which purported to give Raghunath the authority to sell
the lands which were said to have come to the shares of the members of the
family. But that document also would be of no avail unless its premise,. of the
partition, was acceptable on its own merits. In considering that premise, it is
important to bear in mind, that under the alleged partial partition of 1956
Laxmibai was allotted 41 acres, Madhav, adopted by her in or about 1954, was
allotted 74 acres and Warubai, the widow of' Laxman was allotted about 64
acres. The rest of the lands continued to stand in the name of Raghunath but in
which all the members of the family were alleged to, have equal shares as
tenantsin-common. Yet, when in 1960 the partition was said to have been
completed, there remaining lands were divided between the wife of Raghunath,
Madhav and his son and Warubai only, and no further lands were allotted to
Laxmibai although in 1956 only 1245 SupCI/71 56 41 acres were given to her. It
is thus difficult to compre hend the basis or the principle upon which the
lands were said to have been divided amongst the various members of the family.
But, apart from this circumstance, the question is would Raghunath, who
admittedly was the karta of the family and as such held all the lands in his
name, have agreed to give 41 acres of lands to Laxmibai in 1956 ? Narayan, we
were told, had died in or about 1920 leaving him surviving as his only heir his
widow, Laxmibai. As the law then stood, Laxmibai would not have been entitled
to any share in the joint family properties. Under the Hindu Women's Rights to
Property Act, XVIII of 1937, a widow governed by the Mitakshra school became
entitled in a joint family property, to the same interest as her husband, such
interest being, however, only a Hindu women's estate. But the Act, by reason of
S. 4 thereof, applied to the property of a Hindu dying intestate after the
commencement ,of the Act. There is nothing on record to show and it appears no
effort was ever made to establish that notwithstanding Laxmibai's legal
disability there was any agreement between the parties whereunder she was given
41 acres ;Absolutely in her own right over and above 74 acres given to Madhav,
her adopted son.
The absence of any document regarding the
alleged severance of the family and the partial partition in 1956, the
inequality of shares allotted to some of the members ,of the family both in
1956 and in 1960, the absence of any principle or basis for such alleged
distribution, the sale of the whole of the lands said to have come to them as a
result of the alleged partial partition, the emergence for the first time in
1960 through Raghunath's said vardhis and the consent deed that each of the
four parties were to have an equal 1/4th share in the properties remaining
after the alleged partial partition, the total absence of any reference to the
other properties such as houses and moveables as subject matter of the
partition, the absence of evidence showing appropriation of the sale-proceeds
by the members to whose shares the lands sold were said to have come, all these
factors rendered the appellant's case ,of partition first in 1956 and then in
1960 doubtful. If in consideration of these factors the two authorities con,currently
declined to accept the case of partition, we on our part would be more than
reluctant to interfere and 57 upset such a finding. The appellants, in our
view, accordingly must fail on that count.
As already noticed, sec. 3 provides that
there shall be imposed to the extent and in the manner provided hereinafter a
ceiling on the holding of agricultural land on the commencement of the Act, i.
e. , on and from January 26, 1962. Under sec. 4, no person can hold land in
excess of the ceiling area and all land held in excess of the ceiling area
would be surplus land and would be dealt with in the manner provided for such
surplus land. Sec. 5 provides for the ceiling area in each of the local areas
and for each class of land as set out in the Schedule. Since a family is
included in the definition of 'person, a family which consists of five persons
would be entitled to the ceiling area as laid down in sec. 5. In cases of
families having more than five members, they would be entitled to hold land
exceeding the ceiling area to the extent of 1/6th of such ceiling area for each
member in excess of five. In such a case, the ceiling area for such a family
would be the area so calculated. But the proviso to sec. 6 lays down that if
any member of such a family holds any lands separately, he is not to be treated
as a member of that family for the purpose of increasing the holding of that
family to the extent as aforesaid, i. e., 1/6th of the basic ceiling area.
Having provided thus for the fixation of a
ceiling area for every person and having provided that there shall be imposed
on every person a ceiling on and from the appointed day, the Act, by secs. 8
and 9 lays down that (i) no person who "on or after the appointed
day" holds excess lands shall, on or after that day, transfer or partition
any land until the excess land held by him is determined, and (ii) that no
person at any time on and after the appointed day shall acquire by transfer or
partition any land if the has land in excess of the ceiling area or land which
together with any other land already held by him would exceed in the total the
ceiling area.
The scheme of the Act seems to be to
determine the ceiling area of each person (including a family) with reference
to the appointed day. The policy of the Act appears to be that on and after the
appointed day no person in the State should be permitted to hold any land in
excess of 58 the ceiling area as determined under the Act and that ceiling area
would be that which is determined as on the appointed day. Therefore, if there
is a family consisting of persons exceeding five in number on January 26, 1962,
the ceiling area for that family would be the basic ceiling area plus 1/6th
thereof per member in excess of the number five.
The ceiling area so fixed would not be liable
to fluctuations with the subsequent increase or decrease in the number of its
members, for, there is, apart from the explicit language of secs. 3 and 4, no
provision in the Act providing for the redetermination of the ceiling area of a
family on variations in the number of its members. The argument that every
addition or reduction in the number of the members of a family requires
redetermination of the ceiling area of such a family would mean an almost
perpetual fixation and re-fixation in the ceiling area by the Revenue
authorities, a state of affairs hardly to have been contemplated by the
legislature. The argument would also mean that where a surplus area is already
determined and allotted to the landless persons such area would have to be
taken back and given to a family, the number of whose members subsequently has
augmented by fresh births.
It is true that sec. 12 does lay down an
obligation on a person to furnish to the Collector a report containing
particulars of all lands held by him if he has held at any time after August 4,
1959 but before the appointed day or has on or after the appointed day acquired
or held or has come into possession of any land in excess of the ceiling.
area as envisaged by sec. 10 (2) or whose
lands are converted into any other class of land as a result of the expiry of
the period or date specified in sec. 2 (5) or whose land is converted into any
other class for the reasons given in sec. 11 and the Collector then has to hold
an enquiry and declare his excess land under sec. 21. But these are the only
cases contemplated where there would have to be a re-appraisal of the ceiling
area, otherwise the Act, as aforesaid, visualises the ceiling area of every
person with reference to the conditions prevailing on and the land held by him
as on the appointed day. Such a construction appears to be borne out by the
provisions of secs. 3 and 4 as also of secs. 8 and 9 of the Act. This is also
the view taken by the High Court of Bombay on more than one occasion.
(See 59 State v. Dinkarrao Narayanrao
Deshmukh (1), also Maruti Rao S. Gube Patil v. State (2) and also Special C.A.
No. 229 of 1968, dec. on July 11, 1969. A view contrary to that taken in the
above mentioned cases was adopted in Civil Application No. 1578 of 1969 decided
on July 16, 1969 by another Division Bench of that High Court. But that does
not appear to be a correct view as the learned Judges there failed to
appreciate that sec. 12 contemplates a limited number of cases where a ceiling
area has to be refixed by reason of the intervening events. Except for those cases,
the scheme of the statute is that a ceiling area is to be ascertained with
reference to the state of affairs existing on the appointed day. In this view,
the Revenue Tribunal was right in not taking into consideration the three
children born in the family after the appointed day while determining the
ceiling area to which the appellants' family was entitled to.
As regards the land purchased in March 1960
in the name of Madhav, the proviso to sec. 6 is clear. For the purpose of
increasing the holding of a family in excess of the ceiling area, if a member
thereof holds any land separately he cannot be regarded as a member of that
family for such purpose. There would be in such a case two alternatives only.
Either that land is held to be the separate property of Madhav, in which case
he cannot be regarded as a member of the family for the purpose of sec. 6. or
it is treated as a family property although it might have been purchased for
some reason or the other in Madhav's name. In the latter event, though it would
be added to the total holding of the family, Madhav would be regarded as a
member of the family and the family being one having more than five members, it
would be entitled to an additional 1/6th of the ceiling area so far as Madhav
is concerned. The Tribunal rightly took this view and included the additional
1/6th area, as there was no evidence that Madhav or the family had treated the
said land as a separate property of Madhav.
For the reasons here in above contained the
appeal fails.
It is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
K.B.N Appeal dismissed.
(1) (1969) 72 Bom. L.R. 237.
Back
