DILIP KUMAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, Dilip Kumar and Jugal Kishore, have challenged the validity of the order, dated June 23, 1978, Ex 9, passed by the Government of Rajasthan for reopening the ceiling proceedings under section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the same petition the order of the Additional Collector, dated September 6, 1979 and the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 27th August, 1980, upholding the order of the Additional Collector, have also been challenged.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are that one Raghunath died in the year 1962, leaving behind him Dilip Kumar and his widow Mst. Nathi, This is an admitted case of the petitioner that at the time of the death of Ragunath he left 199 Bighas and 7 Biswas of agricultural land. This land was entered in the revenue record in the joint Khatedari with Mst. Nathi and Dilip Kumar, adopted son of Raghunath, half, to half, Admittedly. Dilip Kumar was eight years' old at the time of his adoptive father's death. Keeping in view the fact that the policy of the State was to give land to the tillers of the soil, certain revenue laws were introduced and Chapter III-B was inserted in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955'). Proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Act of 1955 were instituted and a notice was served on Mst. Nathi. THE Sub-divisional Officer (vide his order, dated 25 5 72) held that there was no surplus land in possession of either Mst Nathi or Dilip Kumar. THErefore, proceedings were taken under the Act and the Authorised Officer (vide order, dated 22.7.77), hold that 37 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land in possession of the unit consisting of the petitioner No. 1 and Nathi Bai was in excess and the same was liable to be resumed.

(3.) IT can be seen from the brief resume of the relevant provision of the section (supra) that there are two units recognised for the purpose of fixing the ceiling in holding of agricultural land (a) "family" (b) "person". So far as applicability of the Act to a person is concerned, there is no conceptual difficulty, because any person, natural or artificial can hold land and if the land is in excess of ceiling area fixed, the surplus land would vest in the State Government. But the Act has created an artificial family unit constituted by husband, his wife, their children or grand children dependent on them. IT is clear from the scheme of the Act that for the purpose of determining whether land is held in excess of ceiling area, a family unit has to be taken as a single unit and the limitation of ceiling area is applied in relation to the land deemed to be held by such family unit and in such a case each individual member of the family unit is not treated as a separate unit for the purpose of applicability of limitation of ceiling. The land held by each member of the family unit is fictionally treated as land held by the 'family'.