http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: STATE OF BIHAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI K.M. ZUBERI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/02/1996

BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) RAMASWAMY, K. AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1496            JT 1996 (2)   368  1996 SCALE  (2)182

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T PATTANAIK,J.      This appeal  by the  State of Bihar raises the question whether major  sons of  a family  governed by Mohammedan law are entitled  to  a  separate  unit  while  determining  the ceiling area  of a  ceiling surplus  holder? In  the ceiling fixation case  of a  land holder  Aftab Ahmed,  the  Member, Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that an adult son of a land  holder governed  by Mohammedan law would be entitled to a  separate unit  since an  adult son  of a  land  holder governed by  the Mitakshara  School of Hindu Law is entitled to the same. The State of Bihar challenged the said decision in Patna  High Court  by filing a Writ Petition and when the matter came  up before  a Division  Bench, in  view  of  the significance of  the matter  the Division Bench referred the matter to  a larger  Bench and  the case  was heard  by five judges of  the Court.  The majority  view was  expressed  by Chief Justice  Sandhawalia, as he then was, and the minority views were those of Justice H.L.Agrawal, as he then was, and Justice L.M.  Sharma, as  he then  was. Three questions were formulated by the Court, those questions being:      "1.  Whether   the   personal   law      applicable to  the family has to be      taken into  consideration  for  the      determination of  its holding under      the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of      ceiling  Area  and  Acquisition  of      Surplus Land)  Act,  1961.  despite      the insertion  of clause  (ee)  and      Explanation II thereto in section 2      of the said Act?      2. If  the major  sons of  a family      governed by  the Mitakshara  School      of Hindu  Law  are  entitled  to  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

    separate unit  under the  said  Act      then would  a major son of a family      governed  by   Mohammadan  Law   be      debarred therefrom?      3. Whether the Fuli Bench in Amamul      Hasan Choudhary  vs, State of Bihar      & Others  (1982 BBCJ 208) lays down      the law  correctly on the aforesaid      points?      The short  facts are  that the  land holder Aftab Ahmed was shown  to be holding 50.02 acres in the draft statement. The said  land-holder filed an objection claiming that he is entitled to  one additional unit for his adult son. This was rejected  by   the  Additional  Sub-divisional  Officer.  He determined 11.12  acres to  be the  surplus. The land holder appealed to  the Collector  but the appeal was dismissed for default. The  land holder  carried the matter in revision to the Board of Revenue. The Member, Board of Revenue took into consideration the  Amendments  to  the  Bihar  Land  Reforms (Fixation of  Ceiling area  and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 22 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as ’The Act’)  made under Act 1 of 73 and Act 72 of 76 and came to the  conclusion that  personal law  of the land holder is not  required   to   be   taken   into   consideration   for determination of  the holdings.  He further  held that since the adult  son of  a land  holder governed by the Mitakshara Law is  entitled to  a separate  unit the decision should be identical  with  regard  to  the  land  holder  governed  by Mohammedan law.  Accordingly he  allowed  the  revision  and called upon the authorities to re-determine the ceiling. The State of  Bihar being  aggrieved  by  the  same  filed  Writ Petition in the Patna High Court. The  learned Chief Justice who spoke  for the  majority on an analysis of the different provisions of  the Act as well as the tracing history of the legislation and  the amendments  made thereto  came  to  the conclusion that in the ceiling law the statutory "family" as defined in  the Act  has wholly submerged the ceiling of the land holder and such concept of ’family" is entirely secular in character  and has  universal application irrespective of religion, faith or the personal law applicable to individual members. He  further held  that despite  definition  of  the statutory "family" and its secular nature excluding personal laws, to still bring in the concept of the Mohammedan family or Christian family or Mitakshara family for the purposes of the act,  is basically  fallacious and would run against the gamut of  ceiling legislation.  The  learned  Chief  Justice accordingly answered  the question  no.1  in  the  following words:      "It is  held that  the personal law      applicable to  the family is not to      be taken into confederation for the      determination of  its holding under      the Bihar land reforms (Fixation of      ceiling  Area  and  Acquisition  of      Surplus Land)Act 1961. "      So far  as second  question is  concerned  the  learned Chief Justice answered as follows:-      "The answer  to question  no. 2  is      rendered in  the  negative  and  it      held that  if the  major sons  of a      family governed  by the  Mitakshara      school of  Hindu laws  are entitled      to a  separate unit  under the  Act      then the  major sons  of  a  family      governed  by   Mohammedan  Law  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

    entitled to the same." As a  necessary consequence  the third question was answered in the  negative and  the decision  of the  Court in  Imamul Hasan Choudhary vs. State of Bihar and otherwise overruled.      Aggarwal, J. did not agree with the answer given to the second question  by  the  learned  Chief  Justice  and  then adverting to  the provisions of the Mitakshara law and how a minor  male  child  of  a  Mitakshara  coparcenery  acquires interest in  the property  by his birth and is entitled to a share and  how the  position of a Mohammedan son is entirely different came  to the  conclusion that the earlier decision of the Patna High Court in Imamul Hasan Choudhary’s case has laid down the law correctly and, therefore, the adult son of a Mohammedan  land holder  would not be entitled to separate unit.  Sharma  J,  also  differed  from  the  majority  view expressed  by   the  Chief   justice  and  agreed  with  the conclusion of  Agrawal, J.  but  on  different  ground.  The learned Judge  held that a land holder whether an individual or a  family within  the meaning of the Act belonging to any religion, faith  or group  cannot claim  additional land for his ceiling  area on  the ground  of a   major son. In other words according  to Sharma  J, the Act no where conferred an additional unit  on the major son of a land holder belonging to Mitakshara  School of  Law, and  if he  gets  a  separate unit it is on account of his own.      Mr. Pramod  Swarup, learned  counsel appearing  for the appellant,  contended   that  under  the  Act  there  is  no provision which  confers additional  unit in  case of a land holder governed  by Mitakshara  School of  Hindu Law  on the adult son  and, therefore,  the majority  view expressed  by Chief Justice  is vitiated  on  account  of  such  erroneous approach and  the ultimate conclusion that the adult  son of a Mohammedan  land-holder would  be entitled  to  additional unit is unsustainable in law. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing  for the  respondents, on  the other hand, contended that if the adult son of a land holder governed by Mitakshara School  of Hindu Law is entitled to an additional unit there  is no  justification in  denying the same to the adult son  of a  land holder  governed by the Mohammedan law and therefore,  the majority view is wholly justified. It is to be   noted  that so  far  as  the  answer  to  the  first question is  concerned, there  is  no  dispute  between  the parties  and,  in  our  view  rightly  since  the  statutory definition of  "family" in  Section 2 (ee) does not conceive of any  personal law  applicable to  the  said  family  and, therefore, no  personal law  can be taken into consideration for determination  of the  ceiling  surplus  with  the  land holder under  the Act.  In order  to rest the correctness of the  majority  view,  so  far  as  the  second  question  is concerned, it  would be  appropriate for  us to  examine the relevant provisions  of the  Act. Section  2  (aaa)  defines "ceiling area"  to mean the area of land fixed under Section 4 as the ceiling area. "Family" in Section 2 (ee) is defined thus:      "2(ee) ’Family’  means and includes      a person,  his or  her  spouse  and      minor childres;           Explanation I.  In this clause      the  word   "person"  includes  any      company,    institution,     trust,      association. or body of individuals      whether incorporated or not.           Explanation  II  The  personal      law shall  not be  relevant  or  be      taken   into    consideration    in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

    determining the  composition of the      family for the purposes of the Act"           "Land holder" has been defined      in Section 2(g) thus:-           "2(g) ’land  holder’  means  a      family as  defined in  clause  (ee)      holding land as raiyat or as under-      raiyat or  a mortgagee  of land  in      possession    or    holding    land      permanently settled  by  Government      or lessee  of land not resumable by      Government".           "Raiyat" has  been defined  in      Section 2(k) thus:           "Raiyat"  means   primarily  a      person who  has acquired a right to      hold  land   for  the   purpose  of      cultivating it  by himself,  or  by      members of  his family  or by hired      servants or  with aid  of partners,      and includes also the successors-in      interest-  or   persons  who   have      acquired such a right and includes,      in   the    district   of   Santhal      Parganas,  a   village  headman  in      respect of his private land, if any      but does not include in the area to      which the  Chotanagpur Tenancy Act,      1908 (Ben. Act VI of 1908) applies,      a  Mundari   Khunt-Katidar   or   a      bhuihar".      Section 3 of the Act gives the provisions of the Act an overriding effect  over all  other law  in force.  Section 4 fixes the  ceiling area.  The said  Act is  quoted below  in extenso:           "4. Fixation  of ceiling  area      of land.  On the appointed day, the      following shall be the ceiling area      land for  one family  consisting of      not more  than five members for the      purposes of this Act.           (a) Fifteen  acres,  that  is,      equivalent to  6.0705  hectares  of      land irrigated  or capable of being      irrigated by  flow irrigation  work      or tube-wells  or  lift  irrigation      which are  constructed, maintained,      improved  or   controlled  by   the      Central or  the State Government or      by  a  body  corporate  constituted      under any  law and which provide or      are capable  of providing water for      more than  one season  (hereinafter      referred to as class I land)      Explanation.-- A  land shall not be      regarded as  Class I land unless it      is capable  of growing at least two      crops in a year; or           (b) eighteen acres, equivalent      to   7.2846    hectares   of   land      irrigated  by   such  private  lift      irrigation or  private tube-well as      are operated  by electric or diesel      power, and  provide or  are capable      of providing  water for  more  than

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

    one   season (hereinafter  referred      to as class I land ;      Explanation.--     Private     lift      irrigation  or  private  tube-wells      means   those    which   are    not      constructed,  maintained,  improved      or controlled by the Central or the      State  Government   or  by  a  body      corporate  constituted   under  any      law; or           (c)     twenty-five     acres,      equivalent to  10.1175 hectares  of      land, irrigated or capable of being      irrigated by works which provide or      are capable  of providing water for      only   one    season   (hereinafter      referred to as class III land);           (d) thirty  acres,  equivalent      to 12.141  hectares of  land  other      than those  referred to  in clauses      (a)(b)(c)(e) and  (f) or land which      is an orchard or used for any other      horticultural purpose  (hereinafter      referred to as class IV land); or           (e) thirty-seven  and  a  half      acres,   equivalent    to    15.368      hectares of  Diara land,  or  Chaur      (hereinafter referred  to  class  V      land); or           (f)      forty-five      acres      equivalent to  18.211  hectares  of      hilly,  sandy,  forest  land,  even      land  perennially  submerged  under      water or other kind of land none of      which yields  paddy, rabi  or  cash      crops (hereinafter  referred to  as      class VI land)"      Section 5 puts an embargo for any ’family’ to hold land in excess of the ceiling area except provided under the Act.           "5. No  person to hold land in      excess of the ceiling area.--(l)(i)      It shall  not  be  lawful  for  any      family to  hold,  except  otherwise      provided under  this Act,  land  In      excess of the ceiling area.           Explanation.-- All lands owned      or held individually by the members      of a  family or  jointly by some or      all of  the members  of such family      shall be deemed to be owned or held      by the family.           (ii) No  land  holder  holding      land in  excess of the ceiling area      shall from  the commencement of the      Bihar  Land  Reforms  (Fixation  of      Ceiling  Area  and  Acquisition  of      Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1972      and   till   the   publication   of      notification  under   Section   15,      transfer  any   land  held  by  him      except with the previous permission      in writing  of the  Collector,  who      may refuse  to give such permission      if he  is satisfied for the reasons      to be  recorded in writing that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

    transfer is  proposed  to  be  made      with  a   mala  fide  intention  of      defeating the object of this Act:           Provided that  the transfer of      any land  made, with  the  previous      permission of  the Collector, shall      be deemed  to have  been made  from      within the  ceiling area admissible      to the land-holder:           Provided   also    that    the      transfer of  any  land  beyond  the      ceiling  area   admissible  to  the      land-holder shall be deemed to have      been  made   with  the   object  of      defeating  the  provisions  of  the      Act.           (iii) Notwithstanding anything      to the  contrary contained  in  any      judgment. decree  or order  of  any      court or  authority, the  Collector      shall have  power to make enquiries      in respect  of any transfer of land      by  a   land-holder  whether  by  a      registered instrument  or otherwise      made after  the 22nd day of October      1959 and  if he  is satisfied  that      such transfer  was  made  with  the      object   of    defeating,   or   in      contravention of  the provisions of      this Act  or for  retaining, benami      or farzi  land  in  excess  of  the      ceiling  area,  the  Collector  may      after giving  reasonable notice  to      the parties concerned to appear and      be heard,  annul such  transfer and      thereupon the  land shall be deemed      to be  held by  the transferor  for      the  purposes  of  determining  the      ceiling area he may hold under this      section.           (iv) Land  donated by  a land-      holder  under   the  Bihar  Bhoodan      Yagna Act,  1954 (Bihar Act XXII of      1954),    to    the    extent    it      subsequently vests  in the  Bhoodan      Yagna Committee  under the said Act      before  the   date  of   the  final      publication  of   draft   statement      under Section 11 of this Act, shall      not  be   taken  into   account  in      determining the  area he may retain      under this section."      Explanation to  Section 5(1)  connotes  that  the  land owned or  held individually  by the members of the family or jointly shall be deemed to be held or owned by the ’family’.      Section 6  provides for  issuance of  the public notice calling upon  the land-holders of the State who hold land in excess of  the ceiling  area  to  submit  a  return  to  the Collector of  the  District  where  they  originally  reside indicating the particulars as mentioned therein.      Section 7  authorizes the Collector to obtain necessary information if  a ceiling  surplus holder  fails  to  submit return under  Section 6  with regard  to area  held by  such surplus holder.      Section 10  is the provision for preparation of a draft

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

statement on  the basis  of information  received  from  the land-holder.      Section  11  provides  for  publication  of  the  draft statement after  disposing  all  the  claims  or  objections preferred by the land-holder.      Section 15  confers power  on the  State Government and the Collector of the District to acquire surplus land in the hands of  the surplus  holder. We are not concerned with the other provisions  of the  Act for  adjudicating the point in issue.      An analysis  of the  aforesaid provisions unequivocally indicate that  under the Act the ceiling area is required to be determined of a "family" as defined in Section 2(ee) and. therefore, the  land-holder of  whose ceiling is going to be determined may  be either  a person.  his or her spouse, and minor children.  A major  child whether belonging to a Hindu family or  a Mohammedan  or Christian  is not  conceived  of getting an  additional unit  while determining  the  ceiling area of  a land  holder. A  major son  of a Hindu can get an independent ceiling  determined provided he is raiyat within the meaning  of Section  2(k) and  has become  a land-holder within the  ambit of Section 2 (g) but not as a successor to the land-holder  whose ceiling  is being  determined on  the ground that  he has  a right  in the  property by  virtue of birth. In other words, under the Act no distinction has been maintained  between   Hindu,   Mohammedan,   Christian   for determination of  the ceiling area in the hands of the land- holder. The majority view expressed by Chief Justice as well as by  Justice Agrawal  approached the  problem on incorrect premise as  if under  the Act the adult son of a land-holder governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law has been given an additional unit.  Minority view  of Justice  L.M. Sharma  is wholly correct one. The ultimate conclusion, as expressed by the majority  judgment, in  answering  question  no.  2  is, therefore, unsustainable  in law. In our considered opinion, under the  Act while  determining the  ceiling area  in  the hands of a land-holder whether governed by Mitakshara law or governed by Mohammedan law no additional unit is given to an adult son  of the  land-holder and,  therefore, the  earlier view  expressed   by  Patna  High  Court  in  Imamul  Hassan Choudhrys ’case  reported in 1982 (Vol.30) Bihar Law Journal Reports p.150 lays down law correctly.      This  appeal   is  accordingly  allowed.  But,  in  the circumstances, there will no order as to Costs.