PARMANAND VADILAL VASANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Competent Authority at Bhavnagar on 7/07/1984 under Sec. 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Ceiling Act' for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the common order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal ('the Appellate Authority' for convenience) on 26/05/1987 inter alia in Appeal No. Bhavnagar-1318 of 1984 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, the Competent Authority declared the holding of the petitioners to be in excess of the ceiling area by 4749.69 square metres.

(2.) The disputes arising in this petition centre round four parcels of land bearing Plots Nos. 885 admeasuring 1071.24 square metres, 886 admeasuring 1003.35 square metres, 888 admeasuring 1449.01 square metres and 1100 admeasuring 836.13 square metres situated in Bhavnagar ('the disputed lands' for convenience). The aforesaid block of four lands was taken on lease for 99 years by the deceased father of the petitioners alongwith one Nandlal Prabhudas sometime in 1954. A copy of the necessary communication in that regard is at Annexure 'A' to this petition. The terms of the partnership between the father of the petitioners and said Nandlal Prabhudas were not reduced to writing. The father of the petitioners herein breathed his last sometime on 23/08/1973. Since there were only two partners in the partnership firm and since one partner died leaving behind only one partner in the partnership firm and since there cannot be a partnership firm of only one partner according to law, the partnership in question automatically stood dissolved on the death of the father of the present petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that both the partners in the said partnership firm had equal share and the leasehold rights in the disputed lands were inherited by the branch of the deceased partner and the other partner in equal share. On coming into force of the Ceiling Act, the petitioners were required to file the required form under Sec. 6(1) thereof. Both the petitioners filed their separate form for the purposes of the Act. So far as the disputed lands are concerned, each petitioner showed his 1/3rd share in 50% thereof. In other words, each petitioner showed his 1/6th share in the disputed lands alongwith his other properties. On the basis of the aforesaid form, one draft statement was prepared by the Competent Authority and served to the petitioners and their mother as the heirs and legal representatives of their deceased predecessor-in-title. Its copy is at Annexure 'C' to this petition. On behalf of the petitioners, a reply thereto was filed on 17/10/1981. Its copy is at Annexure 'D' to this petition. It appears that in the meantime the other partner of the deceased father of the petitioners also breathed his last. He was survived by his own heirs and legal representatives. They appear to have formed one partnership firm in the name and style of Gokuldas Prabhudas and Bros. After the reply at Annexure 'D' to this petition was received by the Competent Authority, it appears that another draft statement was prepared treating the disputed lands as belonging to the heirs of both the partners of the dissolved partnership firm in their capacity as an association of persons. That draft statement was served to the petitioners as well as the partnership firm formed by the heirs and legal representatives of the other partner as required by Sec. 8(3) of the Ceiling Act. Its copy is at Annexure E to this petition. On behalf of the petitioners, the necessary objections were raised. A copy of their objections is at Annexure 'F' to this petition. Strangely enough, the Competent Authority thereupon registered in all five cases on the basis of the reply at Annexure 'F' to this petition. One case was registered even against the father of the petitioners though he was no longer alive on the appointed day for the purposes of the Ceiling Act. By his common order passed on 7/07/1984 in the aforesaid cases, the Competent Authority came to the conclusion that the disputed lands belonged to the heirs and legal representatives of both the partners of the aforesaid dissolved firm in their capacity as an association of persons and they would be entitled to only one single unit under the Ceiling Act for holding the vacant land. In that view of the matter, he came to the further conclusion that the holding of the petitioners was to the tune of 6749.69 square metres and it was in excess of the ceiling area by 4749.69 square metres. A copy of the aforesaid common order passed by the Competent Authority on 7/07/1984 is at Annexure 'G' to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority by means of their Appeal No. Bhavnagar-1318 of 1984. It was heard alongwith another appeal bearing No. Bhavnagar-1293 of 1984. By the common order passed in the aforesaid appeals on 26/05/1987, the appellate authority dismissed both the appeals. Its copy is at Annexure 11 to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon moved this Court by means of this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure 'G' to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure 'H' to this petition.

(3.) It appears that the Competent Authority remained totally ignorant of the relevant provisions contained in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 ('the Partnership Act' for brief). The position of law emerging therefrom would be that, when a partnership consists of only two partners, on the death of either partner, the firm automatically stands dissolved as there could not be a partnership with only one person as a partner. No authority is needed for this proposition of law based on the first principle of the law of partnership. If one is needed, a reference may be made to the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills, reported in AIR 1966 SC 24. This aspect of the law of partnership was lost sight of by the Competent Authority. If he had kept this aspect of the law of partnership in mind, in view of the relevant provisions contained in Secs. 46 and 48 of the Partnership Act, he would not have hesitated in coming to the conclusion that, on dissolution of the firm, the partnership assets would devolve upon its partners or the representatives of the partners as tenants-in-common. It would mean that each person getting his or her share in the partnership assets would be getting his distinct share therein even if the partnership assets remain undivided.