SHETH CHINUBHAI CHIMANLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question arises as to whether a joint Hindu family of less than five persons is subject to disability of clubbing its holding of land with that of individual member thereof under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 (the Act for short). The question arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) The petitioner Chinubhai Chimanlal holds agricultural lands in his individual capacity as well in the capacity of Karta of his Joint family consisting of himself his wife his minor son and minor daughter. The other members of the said Joint Hindu family namely the wife of the petitioner his minor son and minor daughter also hold lands as individuals in their individual capacity. The lands owned by the members of the said family as well as Joint Hindu family are situate within the revenue limits of village Piplaj Lambha Laxmipura and Halsol. It appears that on promulgation of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 (Known hereafter as the Ceiling Act for short) proceedings were initiated under sec. 20 of the Ceiling Act read with Rule 10 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Rules 1961 (known hereafter as the Ceiling Rules for short) treating the petitioner as holder of all the aforesaid lands and also making provisional declaration about the excess land. One full round of proceedings commencing with the order of the Mamlatdar (Ceiling) of 13/12/1966 and ending with the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by its order of 6/11/1970 resulted into remand of the proceedings which were again comme- nced by notice of 10/08/1970 followed by notice of 4/12/1970 in exercise of powers under sec. 20 of the Ceiling Act. The petitioner was called upon to show cause why the lands standing in the name of petitioner his wife his minor son and minor daughter admea- suring 174 acres and 13 gunthas be not treated as the holding of the petitioner and also to show cause why the land in excess of 72 acres of land which the petitioner is entitled to retain be not declared as a surplus land which he is liable to surrender to the State Government. The petitioner by his replies of 10/09/1970 and 22/01/1971 inter alia contended in effect that the lands standing in the name of the petitioner his wife his minor son and minor daughter cannot be clubbed with the land standing in the name of the petitioner on behalf of joint family of himself his wife and minor children. It was further contended that under the scheme of the Ceiling Act the authorities were under obligation for purposes of determining the extent of the surplus land to compute the total land holding of the individual concerned as well that of joint family if such individual person has a share in the land held by such joint family. In other words the legal contention was that the authorities were under obligation to compute the surplus land unitwise that is unit of an individual or unit of joint family.

(3.) All the relevant records comprising of books of accounts of H.U.F. of the petitioner audited accounts and balancesheets the wealth tax and income tax assessments the extract from revenue record and affidavits as well oral evidence of the witnesses of the petitioner were produced before the competent authorities. The effort of the petitioner in adducing the aforesaid evidence was for purposes of establishing that the land standing in the name of the petitioner on behalf of the joint family was distinct from the lands owned and standing in the name of the petitioner and other members of his family in their individual capacity. The Agri- cultural Lands Tribunal of City Daskroi Taluka of Ahmedabad by its order of 30/09/1972 in Ceiling Case No. 12 of 1966-72 held inter alia that in as much as the Village Form No. 7-12 from the revenue records do not disclose that the family of the petitioner is a joint Hindu family and the evidence which has been produced was neither authoritative for reliable it was therefore not admissible in evidence. The Agricultural Tribunal therefore held that the lands standing in the name of the petitioner as well as other members of his family should be clubbed together and the petitioner was entitled to retain land admeasu- ring 72 acres and the rest of the land was surplus land and therefore he must surrender it to the State Government as specified in paragraphs 3 and 4 of his order.