LAWS(GJH)-1984-6-10

NATHEKHAN SOJALKHAN BIHARI Vs. MAMLATDAR VADGAM

Decided On June 18, 1984
NATHEKHAN SOJALKHAN BIHARI Appellant
V/S
Mamlatdar Vadgam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners of these two petitions are real brothers. They inherited lands bearing Survey No. 73 Part 74 75 87 115 117 171 172 and 173 of village Mepada and Survey No. 137 of village Mengal totally admeasuring 87 acres and 37 gunthas. Each brother had one-half share in the said lands according to the Muslim personal law by which they were admittedly governed. Therefore each brother owned 43 acres and 38.5 gunthas of land forming part of the aforesaid revenue survey numbers.

(2.) Both the brothers were living separately with their respective families at the relevant point of time. The petitioner Nathekhans family consisted of himself his wife two minor sons two minor daughters and a widowed mother. Petitioner Mojamkhans family consisted of his wife four un-married daughters and one minor son. Thus each brother had seven members in the family and both of them lived with their respective families under separate roofs. The ceiling area for Jirayat land was fixed at 39 acres. Thus each brother held 4 acres and 38.5 gunthas in excess of the normal ceiling area. These facts are not in dispute.

(3.) The authorities below including the Revenue Tribunal came to the conclusion that the female members could not be included in the family for the purpose of deciding the uniT under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). To be precise the authorities came to the conclusion that Nathekhans wife widowed mother and two unmarried daughters had to be ignored for the purpose of deciding the family unit to find out if the benefit of sec. 6(3B) of the Act could be extended to them in view of there being two minor sons in excess of the total number of five members. Similarly in the case of Mojamkhan the authorities came to the conclusion that his wife and four unmarried daughters had to be ignored for determining whether the benefit of the aforesaid sub-section could be extended in view of there being a minor son.