MOHD HASAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these six petitions the petitioners happen to be Mohammedans. Mr. Aggarwal, the learned advoeate appearing for the petitioners, urged, in addition to the points urged by him in Special Civil Application NO. 49 of 1976, that the concept of family unit, at any rate, in cases of the Mohammedans operates in an arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory manner. According to Mr. Aggarwal, being Mohamm ;dans the conception of joint family and the Joint family available property in cases of those governed by the Hindu Law is not available in case of Mohammedans, like the petitioners, and they are virtually disibled from claiming any benefit under section 3 (3) (a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands ( Ceiling on Holdings ) Act, 1961 as amended by Amendment Act No. 21 of 1975. We are unable to see any substance in this contention. Clause ( a ) of sub-section (3) of setion 3 is attracted only in cases where family as such happens to be the holder of the land. Now, it is true that Mohammedans are not governed by Hindu Law generally and possibility of their having a joint family or joint family properties is almost ruled out in their cases. This by itself, however, cannot have the effect of making the family unit unreasonable or arbitrary or irrational in their cases. Even amongst the Hindu, Karta of the family may not be able to reap the benefit of section 3 (3) (a), if he is not the holder of any joint family property as such. Apart from Mohammedans, there are many other persons belonging to several communities and religions who may have in their family several members and dependant on them & yet their family may not be holder of any family property as such or family lands as such. As discussed in the judgment in Special Civil Application No. 49 of 1976, person and the family unit are made the units for the purposes of determining the ceiling area with a view to confer some benefit on the adult members of the family where family happens to be the holder of the property. Governing intention is to enable the adult members of the family to hold land up to the ceiling are in independently of the family, when the family holds any land as such family, Members of the family who hold the property in individual capacity are subjected to the law equally without regird to whether the members happen to be Hindaj, Mohammedans is, Christians or Parsees. If the head of the Mohammedans, family holds land as also his wife and minor children, all of them will be members of the family unit as contemplated under section 2 (11A) read with section 4 of the Act and such family unit also will be entitled to the benefit of section 6 without regard to whether the family consists of Hindus or Mohammedans or persons belonging to other communities or religions. Cases also can be conceived where as a result of the death of the muslim ancestor, the heirs may happen to hold the land jointly on the commencement of the Amendment Act,viz.2nd October, 1975 and each memeber will be entitled to have the benefit of Section 3 (3) (c), if not of section 3 (3) (a), we are unable to see how our finding about the reasonableness of the family unit in spl., C. A. 49/76 can be affected by the circumstance that the land is held either by the Mohammedan or Hindu person belonging to any other community or religion. We are unable to see any unreasonableness or arbitrariness in this jconcepton. Rules are accordingly liable to bedischarged. Rules discharged. IN the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.