STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAT LAXMANJI TALASJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the course of an exercise in interpretation of a provision (Section 6(3-B) of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act of 1960), complains the appellant-State, the High Court has misinterpreted the said provision which had been correctly interpreted by the Tribunal (Gujarat Revenue Tribunal). The debate in the present appeal has centred on this plea the meritlessness of which will become evident presently.

(2.) The provision in question viz. Sec. 6(3-B) is embodied in Chapter III of the Ceiling Act which bears the caption 'Fixation of Ceiling on Holding Land, Determination of Surplus Land and Acquisition thereof. The concerned provision in so far as material to the problem posed by the present appeal deserves to be quoted :

(3.) The philosophy of this provision stares one in the eyes. When a family is both large and comprises [which expression is employed in the sense of includes {Collins English Dictionary defines 'comprise as...... to include'......)] amongst it members who are subject to one or other of the socio-economic handicaps, fairness demands that such family is permitted to retain some more land than other families which are not so handicapped. The very nature of the three categories which are specified (minors, widow of a pre-deceased son, minor son or unmarried daughter of a pre-deceased son who has lost both parents) conveys this message of plight. Understandable it is, that for such a family which has to carry the burden of misery, the community acting through the legislature has a soft corner and pours milk of human kindness into this benevolent provision aimed at relieving their distress to an extent. Such is the design. Two tests must be satisfied cumulatively for being eligible of claim the benefit :