KISHORLAL PRABHUDAS GHIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By judgment and order, dated 24-1-1989 the appellate Tribunal exercising powers under Sec. 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the competent authority declaring 1590.49 Sq. Mts. of lands as excess vacant land. This petition is directed against the said two orders.

(2.) The present petitioner and respondent No. 3 jointly purchased Plot No. 9 of S. No. 329/384 admeasuring 3852 Sq. Mts. situated at Gondal Road, Rajkot. With respect to these parcels of lands application under Sec. 20 was made for exemption to use the said parcels of land for industrial purpose, but the said application was rejected.

(3.) Mr. P. V. Hathi, learned Advocate for petitioner submits firstly that the competent authority as well as the appellate authority erred in holding that the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 constitute a body of persons so as to be entitled to hold one unit only. Mr. Hathi relies upon the definition of word "person" as defined by Sec. 2(i) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. It is an inclusive definition so as to include an individual, family, a firm, a company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. Mr. Hathi submits that to regard two persons as body of individuals is quite against common sense and while using the words body of individuals or association of individuals the Legislature has in mind a body which is incorporated and a body which is not incorporated. He, therefore, submits that in order to distinguish the group of number of persons whether incorporated or not, the expression "association or body of individuals" is resorted by the Legislature. In his submission, when there are two individuals they cannot be said to be association or body of individuals. I shall have to keep in mind that the Legislature has given a special definition of the word "person" by the definition clause. Secondly, it shall have to be noted that it is an inclusive definition. Thirdly, the word, "person" includes an individual. The Legislature has used singular and not plural. It is not said "person" includes individuals. Therefore, when there are individuals, meaning thereby two individuals or more, they would fall within the expression "association" or "body of individuals". However, uncommon it may sound to common sense, but for the purpose of this legislation, even if there are two individuals or persons coming together to hold the land jointly they would be regarded as "a person" within the meaning of Sec. 2(i) of the said Act. I, therefore, do not agree with the first submission of Mr. Hathi that two joint holders of land cannot be regarded as body of individuals and that each one of them is entitled to one unit as a matter of right under the said Act.