RAMBHAU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by a tenureholder, from the State of Maharashtra, has questioned the manner of calculation of ceiling area under Section 3 (3 (i) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Landholdings) Act, 27 of 1961 (as amended by Act 21 of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) What was claimed by the tenureholder was that he had two unmarried daughters on the relevant date. Therefore, the ceiling authority, while calculating the ceiling area of the family, should have taken into account the liability of the family for the maintenance and marriage expenses of these daughters. And their share in the land should have been notionally worked out and so much of the area, as would have been found sufficient for their maintenance, should have been excluded while determining the ceiling area of the appellant. The basis for such claim was a decision given by the Bombay High court in Manaklal Nathamal v. State of Maharashtra. It was held that at the time of carving out a notional clause in terms of Section 3 (3 (i) of the Ceiling Act, what the ceiling authority has to do is to notionally ascertain the shares of the coparceners as the civil court would have done at the time of passing of a partition decree. This conclusion was reached by the learned Judge on a strength of a Privy council decision in M. A. Rajagopala Ayyar v. M. A. Venkataraman wherein it was observed that the right of an unmarried daughter in maintenance and marriage expenses out of the joint family property is in lieu of a share on partition; provision should accordingly be made for her marriage expenses in the partition decree. The division bench of the High court, however, did not agree with it as this decision had not been agreed by another learned Judge of the same court in Bhagwandas Heda v. State of Maharashtra The division bench agreed with the decision in Heda case that 'the correct legal position under Section 3 (3 (i) of the Ceiling Act is that while calculating the extent of share which the members of a family unit are entitled to hold, the claim of the unmarried daughters to maintenance and marriage expenses are not required to be taken into account'.

(3.) Section 3 (3 (i) of the Act reads as under: