JAYANLILAL TRIBHUVANDAS PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the decision dated 9/07/1984 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 2 of 1983. By the impugned decision, the Tribunal confirmed the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below dismissing the revision application of the present petitioner.

(2.) . The petitioner filed the requisite Form No. 2 under Sec. 10 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short "the Land Ceiling Act") before the Mamlatdar, stating the lands held by the petitioner. The Additional Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Vadodara, by his judgment and order in Ceiling Case No. 2 of 1976 held that the petitioner held the land, Acres 25 Juntas 28, in excess of the ceiling area. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Mamlatdar, preferred Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1982 in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Vadodara. The Assistant Collector by his decision dated 30/10/1982, dismissed the appeal. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal also rejected the revision application as aforesaid.

(3.) . Mr. H. M. Parikh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has raised the following points : (1) The Courts below, including the revisional authority, committed an error of law in construction of the provisions of Sec. 6(3B) of the Land Ceiling Act, inasmuch as there were admittedly 7 members in the family of the petitioner and as such the petitioner was entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of one-fifth of the ceiling area for each member in excess of 5, subject to the total holding of the family not exceeding twice the ceiling area. (2) The land in question was the ancestral property. The sisters of the petitioner have right and share in the property and the Courts below, without issuing the notice to the petitioner's sisters and thus ignoring their rights and share, decided the question as to excess holding. Therefore, the impugned decision was violative of principles of natural justice. As regards the first point relating to the further holding of the ceiling area for each of the family members in excess to 5, there is substance in the submission of Mr. Parikh. Section 6(3B) of the Land Ceiling Act provides that where a family or a joint family consists of more than five members comprising a person and other members belonging to all or any of the following categories, namely : (i) minor son, (ii) widow of pre-deceased son, (iii) minor son or unmarried daughter of a pre-deceased son, where his or her mother is dead, such family shall be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of one-fifth of the ceiling area for each member in excess of five. so however that the total holding of the family does not exceed twice the ceiling area and in such a case, in relation to the holding of such family, such area shall be deemed to be the ceiling area. In the instant case. there were admittedly seven members in the family of the petitioner as named by the Additional Mamlatdar in his judgment at Annexure "A". As held in the case of Nalhekhan Sohalkhan Bihari v. Mamlatdar, Vadgam and Ors., [1984(2)] XXV (2) GLR 1473 and in the case of State of Gujarat v. Jat Laxmanji Talasji, [1988(2)] XXIX(2) GLR 1036, a family consisting of more than five members in it and having the category of members mentioned in the three sub-clauses of Sec. 6(3B), such family will be entitled to the benefit of enlargement of ceiling area. There is nothing in the sub-section wherefrom it can be inferred that the wife, widowed mother and unmarried daughters were intended to be excluded from the family, i.e., group or unit constituting the family. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the family of the land-holder consisted of seven members. Therefore, the first condition required to be satisfied in order to attract Sec. 6(3B) of the Land Ceiling Act is that the family must consist of more than five members. The Additional Mamlatdar, while counting the number of family members of the petitioner, excluded the minor daughters and a minor son and held that there were three members in the family who would be entitled for one unit. This is erroneous in view of the construction of Sec. 6(3B) of the Land Ceiling Act, inasmuch as the minor sons and daughters of the land-owner cannot be excluded. There being two minor sons in the family consisting of in all seven members, the petitioner would be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of 1/5th of ceiling area for each member in excess of five, subject to total holding not exceeding twice the ceiling area. Thus, the petitioner would be entitled to hold 2/5th of the ceiling area.